good cause exception in Virginia

2024“The ‘ends of justice’ exception to Rule 5A:18 is ‘narrow and is to be used sparingly.’” Melick v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 122, 146 (2018) (quoting Pearce v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 113, 123 (2008)).

2023“The ‘ends of justice’ exception to Rule 5A:18 is ‘narrow and to be used sparingly.’” Melick v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 122, 146 (2018) (quoting Pearce v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 113, 123 (2008)).

2024Accordingly, the good cause exception does not apply. “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly,’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220 (1997)).

2023The appellant asks the Court to apply the “ends of justice” exception to Rule 5A:18.3 That exception “is narrow and is to be used sparingly.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220 (1997)). 3 The appellant does not ask the Court to apply the good cause exception to Rule 5A:18, and the Court will not raise that exception sua sponte.

2026“The good cause exception is applied when an appellant did not have the opportunity to object to an alleged error during the proceedings below.” Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 694 (2011).

2023“The good cause exception is applied when an appellant did not have the opportunity to object to an alleged error during the proceedings below.” Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 694 (2011).

2024“The ‘ends of justice’ exception to Rule 5A:18 is ‘narrow and is to be used sparingly.’” Melick v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 122, 146 (2018) (quoting Pearce v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 113, 123 (2008)).

2023“The ‘ends of justice’ exception to Rule 5A:18 is ‘narrow and to be used sparingly.’” Melick v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 122, 146 (2018) (quoting Pearce v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 113, 123 (2008)).

2024Accordingly, the good cause exception does not apply. “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly,’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220 (1997)).

2023Thus, Mohammad is not entitled to the application of the good cause exception. “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly,’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Conley v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 658 , 682 (2022) (quoting Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc)).

2024Where, as here, a defendant did not make the appropriate motion or motions to preserve a sufficiency objection, the good cause exception “may be invoked only when ‘an appellant did not have the opportunity to object to a ruling in the trial court.’” Holman v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 283 , 298 (2023) (quoting Perry, 58 Va. App. at 667 ). “[W]hen an appellant ‘had the opportunity to object but elected not to do so,’ the exception does not apply.” Miles v. Commonwealth, 78 Va. App. 73 , 84 n.4 (2023) (quoting Perry, 58 Va. App. at 667 ).

2024Where, as here, a defendant did not make the appropriate motion or motions to preserve a sufficiency objection, the good cause exception “may be invoked only when ‘an appellant did not have the opportunity to object to a ruling in the trial court.’” Holman v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 283 , 298 (2023) (quoting Perry, 58 Va. App. at 667 ). “[W]hen an appellant ‘had the opportunity to object but elected not to do so,’ the exception does not apply.” Miles v. Commonwealth, 78 Va. App. 73 , 84 n.4 (2023) (quoting Perry, 58 Va. App. at 667 ).

2020See generally Andrews v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 479, 494 (2002) (explaining that the good cause exception may apply when a litigant did not have the opportunity to raise the particular claim below). 4 The Court has decided this case on the best and narrowest ground by applying a procedural bar relating to failure to preserve the issue in the trial court.

2016See Andrews v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 479, 494 , 559 S.E.2d 401, 409 (2002) (holding that the good cause exception did not apply because the appellant had the opportunity to bring his claim to the attention of the trial court but failed to do so); cf. Toghill v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 220 , 226, 768 S.E.2d 674 , 677 (2015) (applying the good cause exception sua sponte in light of the unique context of a subsequent conflicting opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on a federal constitutional issue). -4- upon the outcome of the case.’”4 M.

2022Ralph asserts that the good cause exception to Rule 5A:18 applies here because he “had little opportunity to move for a withdrawal of his guilty pleas and didn’t fully understand the consequences of his guilty pleas until it was too late to move for withdrawal of the pleas.” “The Court may only invoke the ‘good cause’ exception where an appellant did not have the opportunity to object to a ruling in the trial court; however, when an appellant ‘had the opportunity to object but elected not to do so,’ the exception does not apply.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 667 (2011) (emphasis add

2022The good- cause exception does not apply because Dickerson “had the opportunity to object but elected not to do so.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 667 (2011) (quoting Luck v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 827, 834 (2000)).

2024She contends there is good cause to consider her due process arguments because her “fundamental right to parent her child was taken from her causing a permanent separation of the natural family unit.” But “‘“[g]ood cause” relates to the reason why an objection was not stated at the time of the ruling.’ When a [party] has ample opportunity to bring [her] due process claim to the trial court’s attention but fails to do so, the good cause exception does not apply.” Pope v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 486, 508 (2012) (quoting Campbell v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 988, 996 (1992) (en banc)).

2013Accordingly, I would decline to apply the ends of justice exception to reach the merits of appellant’s assignment of error. 14 Similarly, I find no basis to apply the good cause exception to Rule 5A:18. “ ‘Good cause’ relates to the reason why an objection was not stated at the time of the ruling.” Campbell, 14 Va.App. at 996 , 421 S.E.2d at 656 (Barrow, J., concurring).

2013Therefore, the good cause exception does not apply. “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly . . . .’” Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221 , 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 132 , 380 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1989)).

2013Therefore, the good cause exception does not apply. “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly . . . .’” Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221 , 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 132 , 380 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1989)).

2023See Jones v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 29 , 39 n.5 (2017). -5- When analyzing “whether to apply” the ends-of-justice exception, an appellate court “considers two questions.” Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19, 27 (2016).

2020See Jones v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 29 , 39 n.5 (2017) (applying the Supreme Court’s Rule 5:25, which contains a similar contemporaneous objection rule and exceptions).

2023Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384, 392 (2011) (interpreting Rule 3:19(b)); Stephens v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 157, 162 (2007) (“[W]e are of opinion that the good cause requirement reflects a legislative intent to invest circuit courts with discretion . . . .”).

2023Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384, 392 (2011) (interpreting Rule 3:19(b)); Stephens v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 157, 162 (2007) (“[W]e are of opinion that the good cause requirement reflects a legislative intent to invest circuit courts with discretion . . . .”).

2023“The ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 is narrow and is to be used sparingly.” Id. (quoting Copeland v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 424, 442 (2004)).

2022In addition, “[t]he ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 is narrow and is to be used sparingly.” Id. (quoting Copeland v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 424, 442 (2004)).

2022See Moore, 276 Va. at 756 .

2021See Moore, 276 Va. at 756 .

2024Whether to apply the ends of justice exception involves two questions: “(1) whether there is error as contended by the appellant; and (2) whether the failure to apply the ends of justice provision would result in a grave injustice.” Bass, 292 Va. at 27 (quoting Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 678, 689 (2010)).

2023See Jones v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 29 , 39 n.5 (2017). -5- When analyzing “whether to apply” the ends-of-justice exception, an appellate court “considers two questions.” Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19, 27 (2016).

2015See Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va.App. 681, 694 , 714 S.E.2d 212, 218 (2011) (holding that the good cause exception of Rule 5A:18 applies when " 'some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with ... [the] rule’ ” (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2645 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1968))); cf. Code § 8.01-384(A) (providing that “if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection shall not thereafter prejudice him on motion for a new trial or on appeal”).

2015See Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va.App. 681, 694 , 714 S.E.2d 212, 218 (2011) (holding that the good cause exception of Rule 5A:18 applies when " 'some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with ... [the] rule’ ” (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2645 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1968))); cf. Code § 8.01-384(A) (providing that “if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection shall not thereafter prejudice him on motion for a new trial or on appeal”).

2025Williams v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 341, 347 (2010).

2013See Beasley, 60 Va. App. at 399 , 728 S.E.2d at 508 (citing Williams v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 341, 347 , 702 S.E.2d 260, 263 (2010)). -4- (“Purpose”), states, in relevant part, that the purpose of the chapter is “for the appropriate and best use of land” as well as “for the appropriate use and occupancy of buildings . . . .” Thus, appellant argues, the zoning ordinance does not apply to him because the language of §§ 10-3-2 and 10-3-3 of the City Code suggests that the zoning chapter covers only real property—territory, land, and buildings—but not personal property.

2024Whether to apply the ends of justice exception involves two questions: “(1) whether there is error as contended by the appellant; and (2) whether the failure to apply the ends of justice provision would result in a grave injustice.” Bass, 292 Va. at 27 (quoting Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 678, 689 (2010)).

2022Whether to apply the ends of justice exception involves two questions: “(1) whether there is error as contended by the appellant; and (2) whether the failure to apply the ends of justice provision would result in a grave injustice.” Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19, 27 (2016) (quoting Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 678, 689 (2010)).

2023“The ‘ends of justice’ exception to Rule 5A:18 is ‘narrow and is to be used sparingly.’” Pearce v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 113, 123 (2008) (quoting Bazemore v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 203, 219 (2004) (en banc)).

2023“The ‘ends of justice’ exception to Rule 5A:18 is ‘narrow and is to be used sparingly.’” Pearce v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 113, 123 (2008) (quoting Bazemore v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 203, 219 (2004) (en banc)).

2023Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384, 392 (2011) (interpreting Rule 3:19(b)); Stephens v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 157, 162 (2007) (“[W]e are of opinion that the good cause requirement reflects a legislative intent to invest circuit courts with discretion . . . .”).

2023Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384, 392 (2011) (interpreting Rule 3:19(b)); Stephens v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 157, 162 (2007) (“[W]e are of opinion that the good cause requirement reflects a legislative intent to invest circuit courts with discretion . . . .”).

2013“In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436 , 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)).

2013“In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436 , 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)).

2012“In other words, if reliable hearsay is presented, the good cause requirement is satisfied.” Commonwealth v. Negron, 441 Mass. 685 , 808 N.E.2d 294, 300 (2004).

2012“In other words, if reliable hearsay is presented, the good cause requirement is satisfied.” Commonwealth v. Negron, 441 Mass. 685 , 808 N.E.2d 294, 300 (2004).

2007See generally United States v. Myers, 294 F.3d 203, 206 (1st Cir.2002) (noting good cause “depends on objective reasonableness”); see also Umbarger v. Virginia Employment Comm’n, 12 Va.App. 431, 435 , 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1991) (holding that courts “must first apply an objective standard to the reasonableness” of an employee’s actions in order to assay “good cause”).

2007See generally United States v. Myers, 294 F.3d 203, 206 (1st Cir.2002) (noting good cause “depends on objective reasonableness”); see also Umbarger v. Virginia Employment Comm’n, 12 Va.App. 431, 435 , 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1991) (holding that courts “must first apply an objective standard to the reasonableness” of an employee’s actions in order to assay “good cause”).

2007See generally United States v. Myers, 294 F.3d 203, 206 (1st Cir.2002) (noting good cause “depends on objective reasonableness”); see also Umbarger v. Virginia Employment Comm’n, 12 Va.App. 431, 435 , 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1991) (holding that courts “must first apply an objective standard to the reasonableness” of an employee’s actions in order to assay “good cause”).

2007See generally United States v. Myers, 294 F.3d 203, 206 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting good cause “depends on objective reasonableness”); see also Umbarger v. Virginia Employment Comm’n, 12 Va. App. 431, 435 , 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1991) (holding that courts “must first apply an objective standard to the reasonableness” of an employee’s actions in order to assay “good cause”). 4 We are unpersuaded by Kirin’s citation to Roman v. Dep’t of Corrections, 808 A.2d 304 (Pa. Commw.

2026See Williams, 57 Va. App. at 768 (noting that the appellant did not argue that the good cause exception in Code § 19.2-266.2(B) should be invoked).

2025See Spanos v. Taylor, 76 Va. App. 810 , 827-28 (2023) (stating that when an appellant “has not invoked either exception to Rule 5A:18,” this Court “do[es] not consider them sua sponte”); Widdifield v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 559, 564 (2004) (en banc) (“When an appellant has had so many opportunities to raise the exception and has not, for the Court to raise it sua sponte would compromise the Court’s role and place it in the position of becoming a de facto advocate.”).

2024She contends there is good cause to consider her due process arguments because her “fundamental right to parent her child was taken from her causing a permanent separation of the natural family unit.” But “‘“[g]ood cause” relates to the reason why an objection was not stated at the time of the ruling.’ When a [party] has ample opportunity to bring [her] due process claim to the trial court’s attention but fails to do so, the good cause exception does not apply.” Pope v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 486, 508 (2012) (quoting Campbell v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 988, 996 (1992) (en banc)).

2022This Court “considers two questions when deciding whether to apply the ends of justice exception: (1) whether there is error as contended by the appellant; and (2) whether the failure to apply the ends of justice provision would result in a grave injustice.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 25, 27-28 (2017) (quoting Bass, 292 Va. at 27 ).

2022See Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017) (recognizing that “judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available’” (quoting Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015))). 4 Hoballah also argues that the plea agreement should be “null and void” because his plea agreement contains the provision that, “[i]f the Defendant files an appeal of this matter, then this agreement is null and void.” However, Hoballah “acknowledges that this specific argument was not made before the trial court but requests review under the good cause or ends of justice