Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 288 S.E.2d 491 (Va. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 288 S.E.2d 491 (Va. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
134 citation events (68 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Scott J. Roberts, P.T. v. Virginia Board of Physical Therapy (vactapp, 2026-01-27) · Strongest negative: Charles A. Coe v. Commonwealth of Virginia (vactapp, 2004-03-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Charles A. Coe v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: but see · confidence high
See id.; see also Wright v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 148, 151 , 526 S.E.2d 784, 786 (2000) (recognizing that rehabilitative statutes should be liberally construed in keeping with their rehabilitative purpose); but see Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (noting that a statute may be interpreted in accord with its purpose only to the extent that such purpose “‘may be accomplished without doing harm to [the statute’s] language’” (quoting Gough v. Shaner, Adm’r, 197 Va. 572, 575 , 90 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1955))).
discussed Cited "but see" State v. Johnson (2×)
W. Va. · 1988 · signal: but see · confidence high
E.g., State v. Stellato, 10 Conn.App. 447 , 523 A.2d 1345 (1987); Kilgore v. State, 251 Ga. 291 , 305 S.E.2d 82 (1983); Perkins v. State, 483 N.E.2d 1379 (Ind.1985); Commonwealth v. Cerveny, 387 Mass. 280 , 439 N.E.2d 754 (1982); People v. Porterfield, 128 Mich.App. 35 , 339 N.W.2d 683 (1983); State v. Louf, 126 N.J.Super. 321 , 314 A.2d 376 (1973); State v. Ross, 86 N.M. 212 , 521 P.2d 1161 (N.M.App.1974); People v. Macklowitz, 135 Misc.2d 232 , 514 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y.Sup.1987); State v. Fancher, 27 Or.App. 91 , 555 P.2d 792 (1976); but see Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368 , 288 S.E.2d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott J. Roberts, P.T. v. Virginia Board of Physical Therapy
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Square LLC, 77 Va. App. 375 , 405-06 (2023) (a statute “should be read and applied so as to accord with the purpose intended and attain the objects desired if that may be accomplished without doing harm to its language” (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 (1982))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leslie Olivia Hairston v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Because a “single criminal act can be a violation of more than one statute,” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 371 (1982), and the “choice of offenses for which a criminal defendant will be charged is within the discretion of the Commonwealth’s Attorney,” Kauffmann v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 400, 410 (1989), a defendant must have notice under Code § 19.2-306(B) of the fact of their -9- violations and the legal consequences that will result from the criminal charge levied against them.3 Indeed, nothing prevented the Commonwealth here from using a possible conviction on Hairst…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Iron Horse Transport LLC v. Det Diesel Emission Technologies LLC
N.D. Tex. · 2024 · confidence medium
Courts ordinarily construe remedial statutes liberally, but the VRFA “contains criminal sanctions applicable to franchisors and is a trade regulation statute in derogation of the common law,” so the VRFA “must be construed strictly.” Id. (citing Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Iron Horse Transport, LLC v. Det Diesel Emission Technologies, LLC
W.D. Va. · 2024 · confidence medium
Courts ordinarily construe remedial statutes liberally, but the VRFA “contains criminal sanctions applicable to franchisors and is a trade regulation statute in derogation of the common law,” so the VRFA “must be construed strictly.” Id. (citing Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodall v. Unknown (2×)
E.D. Va. · 2022 · confidence medium
In Virginia, a conspiracy is defined as “an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 288 S.E.2d 491, 492 (Va. 1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Donnie Elijah Smallwood v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
In resolving this issue, we are mindful that the language of the conspiracy statute is to be “strictly construed against the Commonwealth.” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 (1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Butcher v. Commonwealth
Va. · 2020 · confidence medium
Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 371 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Derrell Marques Harrell, s/k/a Darrell Marques Harrell v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“Conspiracy is defined as ‘an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’” Brown, 10 Va. App. at 78 (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 (1982)). “[A] common purpose and plan may be inferred from a ‘development and collocation of circumstances.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Godel, 361 F.2d 21, 23 (4th Cir. 1966)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cedric Detavius Sandidge v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Sheriffs Office, 289 Va. 499 , 508 n.3, 771 S.E.2d 858 , 862 n.3 (2015) (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (alteration in original)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brando Clifton Carter, s/k/a Brando Scott Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“Conspiracy is defined as ‘an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fitzgerald v. Loudoun County Sheriff's Office
Va. · 2015 · confidence medium
The rule of lenity serves only to resolve genuine ambiguities and “does not abrogate the well recognized canon that a statute . . . should be read and applied so as to accord with the purpose intended and attain the objects desired if that may be accomplished without doing harm to its language.” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (omission in original) (quoting Gough v. Shaner, 197 Va. 572, 575 , 90 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1955)). 10 of general interest to law-enforcement agencies, such as missing persons, lost and found property, suicides and accidental dea…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph Louis Paduano v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Rather, “we construe the *183 language according to its plain meaning without resort to rules of statutory interpretation.” Holsapple v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 593, 598 , 587 S.E.2d 561, 564 (2003). 4 Indeed, the rule of lenity serves only to resolve genuine, plausible ambiguities and “does not abrogate the well-recognized canon that a statute ... should be read and applied so as to accord with the purpose intended and attain the objects desired if that may be accomplished without doing harm to its language.” De’Armond, 51 Va.App. at 35, 654 S.E.2d at 321 (quoting Cartwright v. Common…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Amanda Lucille Ragan v. Commonwealth of Virginia (4×) also: Cited "see"
Va. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
In Wooten v. Commonwealth, 235 Va. 89, 93 , 368 S.E.2d 693, 695 (1988), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that “a single agreement can form the basis for multiple violations of [Code] § 18.2-256.” See also Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 494 (1982) (holding that a “single agreement can form the basis for multiple violations of Code § 18.2-22,” the general conspiracy statute).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orlando Rondell Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Moreover, “[o]nly when a ‘penal statute is unclear’ do courts apply the rule of lenity and strictly construe the statute in the criminal defendant’s favor.” De’Armond v. Commonwealth, 51 Va.App. 26, 34 , 654 S.E.2d 317, 321 (2007) (quoting Waldrop v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 210, 214 , 495 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1998)). “[T]he rule of lenity serves only to resolve genuine, plausible ambiguities and ‘does not abrogate the well recognized canon that a statute ... should be read and applied so as to accord with the purpose intended and attain the objects desired if that may be accomplished…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Liberty
Mo. · 2012 · confidence medium
Instead, the rule of lenity serves only to resolve genuine, plausible ambiguities and 'does not abrogate the well recognized canon that a statute ... should be read and applied so as to accord with the purpose intended and attain the objects desired if that may be accomplished without doing harm to its language.’ Cartwright v. Commonwealth [ 223 Va. 368 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)] (citation omitted). 51 Va.App. 26 , 654 S.E.2d 317, 321 (2007). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chapman v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
More *733 over, “[o]nly when a ‘penal statute is unclear 1 do courts apply the rule of lenity and strictly construe the statute in the criminal defendant’s favor.” De’Armond v. Commonwealth, 51 Va.App. 26, 34 , 654 S.E.2d 317, 321 (2007) (quoting Waldrop v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 210, 214 , 495 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1998)). “[T]he rule of lenity serves only to resolve genuine, plausible ambiguities and ‘does not abrogate the well recognized canon that a statute ... should be read and applied so as to accord with the purpose intended and attain the objects desired if that may be accompl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nikita Terell Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Conspiracy is “an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1936)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fullwood v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
In affirming the defendant’s multiple drug conspiracy convictions in Wooten , our Supreme Court stressed the statutory language of the general conspiracy statute (Code § 18.2-22) providing that “ ‘[cjonspiracies to commit more serious crimes are punished more severely.’” Id. at 93, 368 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) De'Armond v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Instead, the rule of lenity serves only to resolve genuine, plausible ambiguities and “does not abrogate the well recognized canon that a statute ... should be read and applied so as to accord with the purpose intended and attain the objects desired if that may be accomplished without doing harm to its language.” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Felipe Franco v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
In short, the jury could conclude that there was an agreement between Franco and Arbaisa to “‘commit an offense’” by “‘some concerted action.’” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 45, 48 , 441 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1994) (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barbara Jane Smith v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220 , 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) ("The laudatory purpose behind Rule 5A:18 . . . is to require that objections be promptly brought to the attention of the trial court with sufficient specificity that the alleged error can be dealt with and timely addressed and corrected when necessary."). 15 Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 371 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982). - 7 - * * * * * * * The question resolves itself, therefore, into one of legislative intent where the issue is whether "the Legislative Branch" has provided that two offenses may be punis…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dorothea Chisom Martin v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Conspiracy is "'an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.'" Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Delmah Rapheal Poindexter v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Conspiracy to Commit Credit Card Fraud “A conspiracy is ‘an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’” Bowman v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 259, 265 , 397 S.E.2d 886, 889 (1990) - 7 - (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jeanette Lee Kenowitz v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Conspiracy "A conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.'" Bowman v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 259, 265 , 397 S.E.2d 886, 889 (1990) (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
A conspiracy is “an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 45, 48 , 441 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1994) (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hudak v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
A conspiracy is “an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 45, 48 , 441 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1994) (quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
A conspiracy is “an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense,” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982), and may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Conspiracy is defined as "an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense." Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fortune v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
E.g., Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bowman v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
A conspiracy is "an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense." Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
"Conspiracy is defined as `an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.'" Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)); see Amato v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 544, 551 , 352 S.E.2d 4, 8 (1987). "[A] common purpose and plan may be inferred from a `development and collocation of circumstances.'" United States v. Godel, 361 F.2d 21, 23 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 838 , 87 S.Ct. 87 , 17 L.Ed.2d 72 (1966) (quoting Glasser v. United States, 315 U.…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Crone v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc.
Va. · 1989 · confidence medium
Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
“Conspiracy is defined as an ‘agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’ ” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982); Amato v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 544 , 352 S.E.2d 4 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Poole v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
“Conspiracy is defined as an ‘agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’ ” Amato v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 544, 551 , 352 S.E.2d 4, 8 (1987)(quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982))(emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hodge v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
“Conspiracy is defined as ‘an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’ ” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982)(quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)); see also Amato v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 544, 551 , 352 S.E.2d 4, 8 (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barber v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Specifically, he argues that the evidence that Leonituk obtained approximately 150 pounds of marijuana from Messer’s residence upon his instructions was insufficient to constitute part of the alleged conspiracy. *177 “Conspiracy is defined as ‘an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’ ” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)); see Amato v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 544, 551 , 352 S.E.2d 4, 8 (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amato v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
“Conspiracy is defined as an ‘agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’ ” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)); see Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 265, 270, 343 S.E.2d 465, 469 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
A conspiracy is “an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.” Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544 , 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jordan v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
See Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 82-83 (1955); Educational Books, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 392, 394-95 , 323 S.E.2d 84, 85 (1984), cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 2367 (1985); Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 492 (1982).
cited Cited "see" Telegraph Square II, A Condominium Unit Owners v. 7205 Telegraph Square, LLC
Va. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 (1982).
cited Cited "see" Telegraph Square II, A Condominium Unit Owners v. 7205 Telegraph Square, LLC
Va. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 (1982).
cited Cited "see" Telegraph Square II, A Condominium Unit Owners v. 7205 Telegraph Square, LLC
Va. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" Patterson v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , *617 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (noting that a statute may be interpreted in accord with its purpose only to the extent that such purpose “ ‘may be accomplished without doing harm to [the statute’s] language’ ” (quoting Gough v. Shaner, Adm’r, 197 Va. 572, 575 , 90 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1955))).
discussed Cited "see" Educational Books, Inc. v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Kenneth A. Stokes, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (4×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
“This does not mean, however, that [appellant] is entitled to an interpretation of Code § 19.2-303 that is inconsistent with the statute’s plain language.” Patterson v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 610, 616 , 575 S.E.2d 583, 586 (2003); see also Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372 , 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982) (noting that a statute may be interpreted in accord with its purpose only to the extent that such purpose “‘may be accomplished without doing harm to [the statute’s] language’” (quoting Gough v. Shaner, Adm’r, 197 Va. 572, 575 , 90 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1955))).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paul Andrew Cartwright
v.
Commonwealth of Virginia
Record 810230.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Mar 12, 1982.
288 S.E.2d 491
William P. Robinson, Jr. (Robinson, Eichler, Zaleski & Mason, on brief), for appellant., Thomas D. Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General (Marshall Coleman, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Carrico, Cochran, Poft, Compton, Thompson, Stephenson, Harrison.
Cited by 54 opinions  |  Published
STEPHENSON, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether a single agreement to commit several crimes can support multiple convictions under our conspiracy statute. [1]

[*370] Paul Andrew Cartwright was formerly employed as a security guard at the General Foam and Plastics Corporation in Norfolk. While on the job, he learned that a driver of the Tidewater Macke Company, carrying a large sum of money, came to the plant each night to service the vending machines.

After he left General Foam’s employment, Cartwright and his brother plotted to rob the Macke employee. On June 30, 1980, Cartwright went to the plant for a rehearsal. He talked to the guard on duty and. to the driver. He aimed a gun at the driver and fired several blank cartridges, seemingly as a practical joke.

On July 14, Cartwright and his brother returned to the plant. While his brother waited in the car, Cartwright approached the plant gate with his gun drawn. In a few minutes he returned, apparently to leave the scene. At this point he was arrested by the Norfolk Police, who had the plant under surveillance.

In a statement to police, Cartwright outlined what he and his brother had planned to do:

[M]y intention was to knock the guard unconscious without being seen; if not possible, I was going to shoot him in the chest and lower abdomen.
The Macke man I intended to just take him around, play the part of a security guard, and when he got to the cafeteria ... I was going to knock him unconscious and then kill him, and then I was going to remove the bullets from the body. I was going to carve them out with a knife that I brought with me for that purpose, and then I was going to load them in the vehicle, . . . and drive them out to the Knotts Island area and dispose of the bodies in the marsh.

Based on this and other evidence, Cartwright was convicted of three counts of violating Code § 18.2-22, that is, (1) conspiracy to commit murder of the guard; (2) conspiracy to commit capital murder of the Macke employee; and (3) conspiracy to commit robbery. [2] He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for conspir[*371] acy to commit capital murder, 6 years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit murder, and 4 years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit robbery.

Cartwright argued below and contends here that he is guilty of but one conspiracy, that to commit robbery. He asserts that because there was but one agreement, there can be but one violation of the statute. The object of the agreement was to commit robbery and the two murders were merely “collateral necessities to insure the successful accomplishment of the original criminal enterprise of the robbery for profit.”

We have held that a single criminal act can be a violation of more than one statute. Martin v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 720, 723, 273 S.E.2d 778, 780 (1981); Jones v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 370, 375, 157 S.E.2d 907, 910 (1967). Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that a single agreement can support convictions for violation of more than one conspiracy statute. Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981).

In Albernaz, the defendant conspired to import and distribute marijuana. He was found guilty of violating 21 U.S.C. § 963 and 21 U.S.C. § 846. The two sections contain identical language, but are found in different subchapters of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The Court held the multiple sections evidenced Congressional intent to impose multiple punishments for a single conspiracy and the convictions therefore were in conformance with statutory and constitutional law.

Cartwright relies on Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (1942). In Braverman, the defendant was convicted of multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. § 88. The convictions were based on a single agreement to violate several revenue laws. Unlike Albernaz, the statute was a general one, not directed toward conspiracy to commit a particular crime, but making illegal all conspiracies to commit crime. The Court held that under this statute there could be but one conspiracy conviction.

Our statute is similar to the one in Braverman. However, while Cartwright correctly states the holding of the case, he ignores the rationale. The controlling factor in both Braverman and Albernaz was legislative intent. Whether there was one statute or several was but evidence of the Congressional intent to impose multiple punishment. Our task, therefore, is to discern the intent of the General Assembly on this issue.

[*372] Conspiracy is defined as “an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.” Falden v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 542, 544, 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937). Two reasons have been given for making such an agreement illegal. One is to punish the special dangers inherent in group criminal activity. Lafave, W. & Scott, A., Handbook on Criminal Law at 459 (1972). The second is to permit preventive steps against those who show a disposition to commit crime. Id.

We are aware that as a penal statute Code § 18.2-22 must be strictly construed against the Commonwealth.

Yet that rule of construction does not abrogate the well recognized canon that a statute . . . should be read and applied so as to accord with the purpose intended and attain the objects desired. if that may be accomplished without doing harm to its language. Any construction that has the effect of impairing the purpose of the enactment or which frustrates, thwarts or defeats its objects should be avoided.

Gough v. Shaner, Adm’r., 197 Va. 572, 575, 90 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1955).

In enacting Code § 18.2-22, the General Assembly determined that all conspiracies are not the same. Conspiracies to commit more serious crimes are punished more severely. Here, Cartwright contends the two murders he planned were “collateral necessities” of the robbery and that he should not be punished for them. We cannot agree. To do so would encourage criminals to plan a number of crimes simultaneously, since only one conspiracy would exist. We do not believe the General Assembly intended this result.

Therefore, we hold that a single agreement can form the basis for multiple violations of Code § 18.2-22. An agreement to commit three crimes can form the basis for three convictions, each to be punished according to the severity of the criminal objective. To hold otherwise would impair the purpose of the statute and frustrate its objective. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Code § 18.2-22 reads in pertinent part:

(a) If any person shall conspire, confederate or combine with another ... to commit a felony ... he shall be guilty of a felony which shall be punishable as follows:

(1) Every person who so conspires to commit an offense which is punishable by death shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony;

(2) Every person who so conspires to commit an offense which is a noncapital felony shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony; and

[*370] (3) Every person who so conspires to commit an offense the maximum punishment for which is confinement in the penitentiary for a period of less than five years shall be confined in the penitentiary for a period of one year, or, in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, may be confined in jail not exceeding twelve months and fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, either or both

2

Cartwright was also convicted of attempted robbery and use of a firearm in commission of a felony. These convictions are not at issue here.