Andrew K. Waller v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                       COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Benton, Bumgardner and Frank
    Argued at Richmond, Virginia
    ANDREW K. WALLER
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 0657-98-2               JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
    JUNE 8, 1999
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY
    George F. Tidey, Judge
    John H. Click, Jr. (White, Blackburn & Conte,
    P.C., on brief), for appellant.
    Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General
    (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
    for appellee.
    A judge tried Andrew K. Waller on the charges of rape and
    attempted murder of Moore, and he convicted Waller of rape and
    assault.   On this appeal, Waller contends that the circuit court
    lacked jurisdiction over the case because the preliminary hearing
    was not held in the juvenile and domestic relations district
    court, which has exclusive jurisdiction to determine probable
    cause in cases involving a "family or household member."    See Code
    §§ 16.1-228 and 16.1-241(J).   We affirm the convictions.
    I.
    The evidence in the record proved that Waller and Moore had a
    romantic relationship for approximately one year and had been in a
    *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
    this opinion is not designated for publication.
    sexual relationship for several months.   During that time, Moore
    and Waller had lived together in the home of Waller's mother for
    "about three to four months."   However, Moore left Waller's
    mother's home in December 1996 and moved to an apartment.    In May
    1997, Moore "was ending [the] relationship" with Waller.    Later
    that month, Waller entered Moore's apartment, took a knife from
    the kitchen area, grabbed Moore by the neck, and threatened her.
    Waller pushed Moore down onto the bed, removed her clothing, and
    then had sexual intercourse with Moore against her will.
    After Waller was arrested, a judge of the general district
    court, criminal division, found probable cause to believe Waller
    committed the offenses of rape and attempted murder.   During the
    trial in the circuit court, the Commonwealth proved in its
    case-in-chief the acts described above.   After the Commonwealth
    rested its case, Waller moved to dismiss the indictments.    He
    argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to try the case
    because Moore was a "family member," as defined in Code
    § 16.1-241, and, therefore, the preliminary hearing should have
    occurred in the juvenile and domestic relations district court.
    Finding that the certification of the case to the grand jury and
    the grand jury indictment "took care of" any defects, the trial
    judge overruled the motion.
    II.
    Waller and the Commonwealth agree that Moore is a "family or
    household member," as defined by Code § 16.1-228.   They also agree
    - 2 -
    that the current version of Code § 16.1-241 governs this case.   As
    pertinent to this appeal, Code § 16.1-241 gave the juvenile court
    "exclusive jurisdiction" over the preliminary hearing according to
    the following terms:
    All offenses in which one family or
    household member is charged with an offense
    in which another family or household member
    is the victim . . . .
    In prosecution for felonies over which
    the court has jurisdiction, jurisdiction
    shall be limited to determining whether or
    not there is probable cause. Any objection
    based on jurisdiction under this subsection
    shall be made . . . , in a nonjury trial,
    before the earlier of when the court begins
    to hear or receive evidence or the first
    witness is sworn, or it shall be
    conclusively waived for all purposes.
    Code § 16.1-241(J) (emphasis added).
    As we recently decided in Burke v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.
    App. 183, 190, 
    510 S.E.2d 743
    , 746 (1999), "appellant waived his
    objection to the juvenile court's . . . jurisdiction over his
    preliminary hearing by not raising such objection before trial
    in the circuit court."   For the reasons fully explained in
    Burke, we hold that Waller waived his objection by delaying the
    challenge until after evidence had been taken.   Accordingly, we
    hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction to try the criminal
    charges, and we affirm the judgment.
    Affirmed.
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 0657982

Filed Date: 6/8/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014