Va. Code » Title 17.1. Courts of Record » Chapter 4. The Court of Appeals
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-410 (2026)

Disposition of appeals; finality of decisions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Each appeal of right taken to the Court of Appeals and each appeal for which a petition for appeal has been granted shall be considered by a panel of the court.

When the Court of Appeals has (i) dismissed an appeal in any case in accordance with the Rules of Court or (ii) decided an appeal, its decision shall be final, without appeal to the Supreme Court, in:

1. Appeals in criminal cases pursuant to subsections A or E of § 19.2-398 and § 19.2-401. Such finality of the Court of Appeals' decision shall not preclude a defendant, if he is convicted, from requesting the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court on direct appeal to reconsider an issue which was the subject of the pretrial appeal; and

2. Appeals involving involuntary treatment of prisoners pursuant to § 53.1-40.1 or 53.1-133.04.

3. Appeals involving denial of a concealed handgun permit pursuant to § 18.2-308.08.

B. All other decisions of the Court of Appeals shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of § 17.1-411.

1983, c. 413, § 17-116.07; 1984, c. 701; 1987, c. 710; 1988, c. 873; 1998, c. 872; 2000, c. 830; 2019, c. 809; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 489.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Cole v. Commonwealth, 806 S.E.2d 387 (Va. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cole v. Commonwealth, 806 S.E.2d 387 (Va. 2017). · cites it 4× “Thus, pursuant to Code §§ 17.1-410 and 19.2-409, the Court of Appeals was authorized to reconsider the constitutionality of the strip search and the admissibility of the Strip Search Evidence when those questions were presented on direct appeal after the defendant's conviction.”
Spencer v. City of Norfolk, 628 S.E.2d 356 (Va. 2006). · cites it 8× “The City argues that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal because the trial court suspended Spencer's jail sentence and therefore imposed no incarceration.”
Riggins v. O'BRIEN, 559 S.E.2d 673 (Va. 2002). · cites it 4× “See Code § 17.1-410(B). II The parties, before entry of the 1991 Decree granting them a divorce, negotiated an agreement respecting support of their four minor children.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 693 S.E.2d 765 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “2d 616, 619 (2002), our Supreme Court stated: With the exception of cases with procedural defects and the limited number of cases for which appellate review by the Supreme Court of Virginia is dependent upon "a substantial constitutional question as a determinative issue or…”
Sheets v. Castle, 559 S.E.2d 616 (Va. 2002). · cites it 2× “With the exception of cases with procedural defects and the limited number of cases for which appellate review by the Supreme Court of Virginia is dependent upon “a substantial constitutional question as a determinative issue or matters of significant precedential value” (Code…”
Rayshawn Torrell Greer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 796 S.E.2d 422 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “The Court notes that this distinction regarding the finality of decisions of this Court in Commonwealth pretrial appeals versus post-trial appeals is also present in Code § 17.1-410(A)(4): When the Court of Appeals has .”
Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Smit, 587 S.E.2d 526 (Va. 2003). · cites it 2× “Volkswagen contends that the Commissioner improperly determined that Volkswagen violated the statute without considering whether Volkswagen failed to comply with the statute’s requirement that Miller receive from its distributor new vehicles in a number “equitably related” to…”
Horner v. Dep't of Mental Health, 597 S.E.2d 202 (Va. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Code § 17.1-410(B). Settled principles apply here.”
Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. v. Quesenberry, 674 S.E.2d 854 (Va. 2009). · cites it 2× “According to the University, the General Assembly specified this narrow standard of review in recognition of a state agency's "exclusive right" to manage its affairs and operations as provided by Code § 2.”
Washington v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., 593 S.E.2d 229 (Va. 2004). · cites it 4× “See Code § 17.1-410(B). In the Court of Appeals, one of the questions the claimant presented was: "That the Commission erred as a matter of law in considering issues not properly before it and in granting relief not requested by the Defense.”
Switzer v. Switzer, 641 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 2007). · cites it 2× “See Code § 17.1-410(A). Because the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in dismissing the appeals, we must reverse the Court of Appeals' judgments.”
Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Commonwealth, 541 S.E.2d 920 (Va. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Code § 17.1-410(B). Thus, we took jurisdiction of the cases, awarded the Alliance and the Tribe separate appeals, and consolidated them for hearing upon the question of standing.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-410(A) — 4 cases
Cole v. Commonwealth, 806 S.E.2d 387 (Va. 2017). “Thus, pursuant to Code §§ 17.1-410 and 19.2-409, the Court of Appeals was authorized to reconsider the constitutionality of the strip search and the admissibility of the Strip Search Evidence when those questions were presented on direct appeal after the defendant's conviction.”
Switzer v. Switzer, 641 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 2007). “See Code § 17.1-410(A). Because the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in dismissing the appeals, we must reverse the Court of Appeals' judgments.”
Jermaine Antoine Coleman v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
Zavia Raymon Murphy v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-410(A)(1) — 2 cases
Spencer v. City of Norfolk, 628 S.E.2d 356 (Va. 2006). “The City argues that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal because the trial court suspended Spencer's jail sentence and therefore imposed no incarceration.”
Jermaine Antoine Coleman v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-410(A)(2) — 1 case
City of Charlottesville v. William Sclafani (Va. Ct. App. 2020).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-410(A)(3) — 2 cases
Barrett v. Minor (ORDER) (Va. 2020).
Bruce Edward Cahill v. Maureen A. Cahill (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-410(A)(4) — 2 cases
Rayshawn Torrell Greer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 796 S.E.2d 422 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “The Court notes that this distinction regarding the finality of decisions of this Court in Commonwealth pretrial appeals versus post-trial appeals is also present in Code § 17.1-410(A)(4): When the Court of Appeals has .”
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Luther George Berry, III (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-410(B) — 16 cases
Riggins v. O'BRIEN, 559 S.E.2d 673 (Va. 2002). “See Code § 17.1-410(B). II The parties, before entry of the 1991 Decree granting them a divorce, negotiated an agreement respecting support of their four minor children.”
Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Smit, 587 S.E.2d 526 (Va. 2003). “Volkswagen contends that the Commissioner improperly determined that Volkswagen violated the statute without considering whether Volkswagen failed to comply with the statute’s requirement that Miller receive from its distributor new vehicles in a number “equitably related” to…”
Horner v. Dep't of Mental Health, 597 S.E.2d 202 (Va. 2004). “See Code § 17.1-410(B). Settled principles apply here.”
Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. v. Quesenberry, 674 S.E.2d 854 (Va. 2009). “According to the University, the General Assembly specified this narrow standard of review in recognition of a state agency's "exclusive right" to manage its affairs and operations as provided by Code § 2.”
Washington v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., 593 S.E.2d 229 (Va. 2004). “See Code § 17.1-410(B). In the Court of Appeals, one of the questions the claimant presented was: "That the Commission erred as a matter of law in considering issues not properly before it and in granting relief not requested by the Defense.”
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.