Conviction of a juvenile as an adult pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall preclude the juvenile court from taking jurisdiction of such juvenile for subsequent offenses committed by that juvenile.
Any juvenile who is tried and convicted in a circuit court as an adult under the provisions of this article shall be considered and treated as an adult in any criminal proceeding resulting from any alleged future criminal acts and any pending allegations of delinquency which have not been disposed of by the juvenile court at the time of the criminal conviction.
All procedures and dispositions applicable to adults charged with such a criminal offense shall apply in such cases, including, but not limited to, arrest; probable cause determination by a magistrate or grand jury; the use of a warrant, summons, or capias instead of a petition to initiate the case; adult bail; preliminary hearing and right to counsel provisions; trial in a court having jurisdiction over adults; and trial and sentencing as an adult. The provisions of this article regarding a transfer hearing shall not be applicable to such juveniles.
1977, c. 559; 1989, c. 675; 1990, c. 668; 1994, cc. 859, 949; 2007, c. 221.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case:
Cook v. Com., 597 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 2004).
Cook v. Com., 597 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 2004).
· cites it 21× “In this appeal, we consider whether, under Code § 16.1-271, the juvenile and domestic relations district court lacks jurisdiction over a juvenile who has previously been certified to the circuit court and indicted by a grand jury as an adult on charges that later are nolle…”
Saunders v. Commonwealth, 692 S.E.2d 252 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 32× “He argued that because Code § 16.1-271 did not specifically list jury sentencing, and because Code § 16.”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 529 S.E.2d 769 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 12× “Code § 16.1-271 provides in relevant part: Any juvenile who is tried and convicted in a circuit court under the provisions of this article shall be considered and treated as an adult in any criminal proceeding resulting from any future alleged criminal acts.”
Broadnax v. Commonwealth, 485 S.E.2d 666 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 21× “He contends that because he was not convicted on the earlier charge, Code § 16.1-271 did not divest the juvenile court of its responsibility to conduct a transfer hearing.”
Asby v. Commonwealth, 539 S.E.2d 742 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 20× “EFFECT OF PRIOR TRANSFER TO CIRCUIT COURT ON CONTINUING JURISDICTION OF JUVENILE COURT The Commonwealth argues, under Code §§ 16.1-271 and 16.1-269.6(C), that appellant's prior conviction in the circuit court for other unrelated offenses precluded the juvenile court from…”
Hughes v. Commonwealth, 573 S.E.2d 324 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Code § 16.1-271. However, the statutes clearly reveal the legislature’s intent that the event that requires all future actions involving the certified juvenile to commence as an adult is triggered by the probable cause finding and certification on the violent felonies, not the…”
Willis v. Commonwealth, 556 S.E.2d 60 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 8× “The juvenile court found probable cause and transferred the charges to the circuit court where a grand jury indicted.”
Saunders v. Com., 706 S.E.2d 350 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 11× “Code § 16.1-271 provides in pertinent part as follows: Conviction of a juvenile as an adult pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall preclude the juvenile court [from] taking jurisdiction of such juvenile for subsequent offenses committed by that juvenile.”
Overdorff v. Commonwealth, 609 S.E.2d 626 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In light of our holding that any pre-indictment procedural errors were cured by the return of the indictment, we need not address the Commonwealth’s arguments that, because Overdorff has now been treated as an adult, Code § 16.1-271 negates the necessity for any further juvenile…”
Antoine Leonard Ingram v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 22× “On appeal, he contends he was entitled to be sentenced by the same jury that convicted him because, although he was a juvenile when the charged offenses occurred, he had been tried and convicted as an adult on an unrelated offense before his trial for the instant offenses and,…”
Herman Openzo Cook v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 11× “On September 20, 2001, petitions were filed in the juvenile and domestic relations district court charging Cook with the instant offenses, alleged to have been committed on September 11, 2001, while he was seventeen years of age. Noting Cook's previous certification and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.