offense violation in Virginia

2025This Court reviews de novo whether “multiple punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.” Commonwealth v. Gregg, 295 Va. 293, 296 (2018).

2025This Court reviews de novo whether “multiple punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.” Commonwealth v. Gregg, 295 Va. 293, 296 (2018).

2025“We review de novo whether ‘multiple [criminal] punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.’” Commonwealth v. Gregg, 295 Va. 293, 296 (2018) (quoting Johnson v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 738, 741 (2016)).

2025“We review de novo whether ‘multiple punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.’” Gregg, 295 Va. at 296 (quoting Johnson v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 738, 741 (2016)).

2025Where a defendant is charged with multiple crimes in the same trial, “the double jeopardy defense does not apply unless: (a) the defendant is twice punished for one criminal act, and (b) the two punishments are either for the same crime or one punishment is for a crime which is a lesser included offense of the other.” Severance v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 564, 572 (2018) (emphasis omitted).

2020This general standard applies to claims, such as appellant’s here, “that multiple punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.” Severance v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 629, 650 (2017) (quoting Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 , 227 (2013)), aff’d, 295 Va. 564 (2018).

2025“When considering multiple punishments for a single transaction, the controlling factor is legislative intent.” Id. at 298 (quoting Kelsoe v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 197, 199 (1983)).

2023“When considering multiple punishments for a single transaction, the controlling factor is legislative intent.” Id. at 298 (quoting Kelsoe v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 197, 199 (1983)).

2005Johnson v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 598, 601 , 347 S.E.2d 163, 165 (1986).

2005Johnson v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 598, 601 , 347 S.E.2d 163, 165 (1986).

2025Where, as here, a defendant is charged in a single-trial setting, “the role of the constitutional guarantee is limited to assuring that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.” Gregg, 295 Va. at 298 (quoting Blythe v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 722, 725 (1981)).

2025Where, as here, a defendant is charged in a single-trial setting, “the role of the constitutional guarantee is limited to assuring that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.” Gregg, 295 Va. at 298 (quoting Blythe v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 722, 725 (1981)).

2004“As a general rule, only under limited circumstances may evidence of other offenses by an accused be admitted to prove the offense at bar.” Langhorne v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 97, 101 , 409 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1991).

2004“As a general rule, only under limited circumstances may evidence of other offenses by an accused be admitted to prove the offense at bar.” Langhorne v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 97, 101 , 409 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1991).

2010Brown argued that his abduction charge must be dismissed pursuant to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, specifically, that the rape for which he had already been convicted in Albemarle County necessarily involved some degree of forcible deprivation of the victim’s liberty, so an abduction trial after his rape conviction operated as a second prosecution for the same offense under the test articulated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).

2002The Court rejected the “factually related” exception some courts had read into the McNeil offense-specific definition, id. at 168, and held that when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it encompasses offenses not formally charged but only if they would be considered the same offense under the test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not).

2021“We review de novo whether ‘multiple punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.’” Groffel, 70 Va. App. at 687 (quoting Commonwealth v. Gregg, 295 Va. 293, 298 (2018)).

2020This Court recently considered the question of “whether [Code § 18.2-308.2] penalizes the simultaneous possession of firearms and of separate ammunition . . . as one offense or two.” Groffel v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 681, 692 (2019).

2025In determining whether a civil sanction constitutes a criminal punishment, we consider factors such as (1) “whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint”; (2) “whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment”; (3) “whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter”; (4) “whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution or deterrence”; (5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime”; (6) “whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it”; and (7) “whether it app

2025In determining whether a civil sanction constitutes a criminal punishment, we consider factors such as (1) “whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint”; (2) “whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment”; (3) “whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter”; (4) “whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution or deterrence”; (5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime”; (6) “whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it”; and (7) “whether it app

2025“We review de novo claims that multiple punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.” Holley v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 156, 160 (2014) (quoting Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 , 227 (2013)).

2020This general standard applies to claims, such as appellant’s here, “that multiple punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.” Severance v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 629, 650 (2017) (quoting Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 , 227 (2013)), aff’d, 295 Va. 564 (2018).

2019Nevertheless, “determination of whether acts constitute a single continuing offense or separate offenses is a factual finding that we will not reverse unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Jin v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 294, 304-05 (2017). 2.

2017“The Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy ... consists of three separate constitutional protections.” Andrews v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 231 , 279, 699 S.E.2d 237, 264 (2010).

2017Beasley v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 381, 391 , 728 S.E.2d 499, 504 (2012) (quoting Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 , * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant’s conviction and sentencing orders list the offense as a violation of Code § 18.2-371.1.

2017While that statute has two subsections, counsel for both parties agreed at oral argument that appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of a violation of Code § 18.2-371.1(A), and the indictment of appellant is clearly based on subsection A of the statute. 330, 601 S.E.2d 555, 574 (2004)).

2017Beasley v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 381, 391 , 728 S.E.2d 499, 504 (2012) (quoting Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 , * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant’s conviction and sentencing orders list the offense as a violation of Code § 18.2-371.1.

2017Beasley v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 381, 391 , 728 S.E.2d 499, 504 (2012) (quoting Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 , * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant’s conviction and sentencing orders list the offense as a violation of Code § 18.2-371.1.

2017See Edwards, 41 Va.App. at 761 , 589 S.E.2d at 448 .

2017See Edwards, 41 Va.App. at 761 , 589 S.E.2d at 448 .

2015Id. at 169-70 (emphasis added).

2014Oliva v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 523, 527 , 452 S.E.2d 877, 880 (1995).

2014Oliva v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 523, 527 , 452 S.E.2d 877, 880 (1995).

2013Fullwood v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 531, 539 , 689 S.E.2d 742, 747 (2010) (citing United States v. Imngren, 98 F.3d 811, 813 (4th Cir. 1996)).

2013Fullwood v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 531, 539 , 689 S.E.2d 742, 747 (2010) (citing United States v. Imngren, 98 F.3d 811, 813 (4th Cir. 1996)).

2013Fullwood v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 531, 539 , 689 S.E.2d 742, 747 (2010) (citing United States v. Imngren, 98 F.3d 811, 813 (4th Cir. 1996)).

2007She was indicted for uttering a check with “insufficient funds.” While the former is an offense in violation of Code § 18.2-172, 5 the latter violates Code § 18.2-181. 4 A “charge,” as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 248 (8th ed. 2004), is a “formal accusation of an offense as a preliminary step to prosecution . . . . ” Coles v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 549, 558 , 605 S.E.2d 784, 788 (2004). 5 Code § 18.2-172 reads in relevant part: If any person forge any writing . . . to the prejudice of another’s right, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged writing, knowing it to be forged,

2007She was indicted for uttering a check with “insufficient funds.” While the former is an offense in violation of Code § 18.2-172, 5 the latter violates Code § 18.2-181. 4 A “charge,” as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 248 (8th ed. 2004), is a “formal accusation of an offense as a preliminary step to prosecution . . . . ” Coles v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 549, 558 , 605 S.E.2d 784, 788 (2004). 5 Code § 18.2-172 reads in relevant part: If any person forge any writing . . . to the prejudice of another’s right, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged writing, knowing it to be forged,

2007She was indicted for uttering a check with “insufficient funds.” While the former is an offense in violation of Code § 18.2-172, 5 the latter violates Code § 18.2-181. 4 A “charge,” as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 248 (8th ed. 2004), is a “formal accusation of an offense as a preliminary step to prosecution . . . . ” Coles v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 549, 558 , 605 S.E.2d 784, 788 (2004). 5 Code § 18.2-172 reads in relevant part: If any person forge any writing . . . to the prejudice of another’s right, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged writing, knowing it to be forged,

2007She was indicted for uttering a check with “insufficient funds.” While the former is an offense in violation of Code § 18.2-172, 5 the latter violates Code § 18.2-181. 4 A “charge,” as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 248 (8th ed. 2004), is a “formal accusation of an offense as a preliminary step to prosecution . . . . ” Coles v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 549, 558 , 605 S.E.2d 784, 788 (2004). 5 Code § 18.2-172 reads in relevant part: If any person forge any writing . . . to the prejudice of another’s right, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged writing, knowing it to be forged,

2002In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, “we review the trial court’s ... legal conclusions de novo.” Timbers v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 187, 193 , 503 S.E.2d 233, 236 (1998). *149 “As a general rule, only under limited circumstances may evidence of other offenses by an accused be admitted to prove the offense at bar.” Langhorne v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 97, 101 , 409 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1991).

2002In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, “we review the trial court’s ... legal conclusions de novo.” Timbers v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 187, 193 , 503 S.E.2d 233, 236 (1998). *149 “As a general rule, only under limited circumstances may evidence of other offenses by an accused be admitted to prove the offense at bar.” Langhorne v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 97, 101 , 409 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1991).