Chavis Williams, s/k/a Chavis R. Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2023 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Beales, Ortiz and Causey
UNPUBLISHED
CHAVIS WILLIAMS, S/K/A
CHAVIS R. WILLIAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0338-22-3 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Thomas J. Wilson, IV, Judge
(Louis K. Nagy; Law Office of Louis K. Nagy, PLC, on brief), for
appellant.
(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Leanna C. Minix, Assistant
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Chavis R. Williams appeals the trial court’s order revoking his suspended sentence and
imposing three years and six months of incarceration. He argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by: (1) allowing the Commonwealth to present evidence at his revocation hearing that
he had contact with gang members while incarcerated following his arrest for violating
probation, (2) finding that he had violated a special condition prohibiting contact with gang
members, and (3) imposing a sentence exceeding fourteen days. We cannot reach his assignments
of error, however, because Williams failed to timely file a necessary transcript or statement of facts
in lieu of a transcript. See Rule 5A:8(a), (b)(4)(ii). Further, after examining the briefs and record
in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). Therefore, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment. See Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii).
BACKGROUND1
In 2011, Williams pleaded guilty to malicious wounding by mob and using a firearm in
the commission of a felony under an agreed disposition with the Commonwealth. The trial court
sentenced him to twenty-three years of imprisonment with nineteen years and six months
suspended, to be followed by four years of supervised probation. The trial court revoked
Williams’s suspended sentence, in part, in February 2015, December 2018, and January 2022.
Williams now appeals his most recent revocation.
ANALYSIS
Williams failed to timely file the transcripts of the court proceedings that would allow us
to resolve his assignments of error. Under Rule 5A:8(a), a transcript must be filed no later than
“60 days after entry of the final judgment.” This Court may extend the deadline “upon a written
motion filed within 90 days after the entry of final judgment” provided the appellant shows
“good cause to excuse the delay.” Rule 5A:8(a).
The trial court entered a final revocation order on January 27, 2022. Williams was
required to file the transcripts by March 28, 2022, but he did not file them until April 21, 2022.
Williams did not move for an extension under Rule 5A:8(a), and the time to do so has now
expired. “This Court has no authority to make exceptions to the filing requirements set out in the
Rules.” Shiembob v. Shiembob, 55 Va. App. 234, 246 (2009) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth,
2 Va. App. 96, 99 (1986)).
1
“In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.” Poole v. Commonwealth,
73 Va. App. 357, 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)).
-2-
The failure to file a transcript is not necessarily fatal to the appeal. “[I]f the record on
appeal is sufficient in the absence of [a] transcript to determine the merits of the appellant’s
allegations, we are free to proceed to hear the case.” Salmon v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App.
586, 590 (2000) (second alteration in original) (quoting Turner, 2 Va. App. at 99). Conversely,
“[w]hen the appellant fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written statement of
facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error affected by such
omission will not be considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii). The decision to review a case on appeal
without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v.
Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988). “Whether the record is sufficiently complete to
permit our review on appeal is a question of law subject to our de novo review.” Bay v.
Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 520, 529 (2012).
Here, nine of the untimely filed transcripts concerned hearings setting the case for trial
and then continuing it. Those transcripts are not needed in resolving the case. But the transcript
of the revocation hearing on January 24, 2022, is necessary. Without that transcript, we do not
know what evidence was presented or what arguments counsel made. Because the revocation
hearing transcript is indispensable to resolving the issues appellant has raised and appellant
failed to ensure that it was timely filed, we cannot consider the merits of his assignments of
error. See Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii). Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
-3-