Va. Code » Title 19.2. Criminal Procedure » Chapter 19. Exceptions and Writs of Error
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-327 (2026)

How judgment of appellate court certified and entered

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

The judgment of the Court of Appeals or of the Supreme Court shall be certified to the court to whose judgment the writ of error was allowed. The court or the clerk thereof shall cause the same to be entered on its order book as its own judgment.

Code 1950, § 19.1-290; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1984, c. 703.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case: Carpitcher v. Com., 641 S.E.2d 486 (Va. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carpitcher v. Com., 641 S.E.2d 486 (Va. 2007). · cites it 2× “'s trial testimony was perjured, which we have held is not part of the "materiality" analysis under Code § 19.2-327(A)(vii). Carpitcher next argues that the Court of Appeals denied him procedural due process in refusing to permit him to file an additional brief challenging the…”
Turner v. Com., 717 S.E.2d 111 (Va. 2011). · cites it 2× “As we explained in Carpitcher , "to be `material' within the meaning of Code § 19.2-327. 11(A)(vii), evidence supporting a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on non-biological evidence must be true.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-327. ll(A)(vii). . The dissent states that "[i]f X says that he did it and that Y did not participate in any way, and the jury believes X, there is no legal way to convict Y.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 680 S.E.2d 312 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “See Code § 19.2-327. ll(A)(vii). To disregard the circuit court’s credibility determination would render the entire evidentiary hearing meaningless.”
Thomas Haynesworth v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 717 S.E.2d 817 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “However, in order to do so, the majority must either authorize the Attorney General, in his discretion, to consent to the issuance of a writ of actual innocence in cases in which such writs would not otherwise issue or ignore the plain meaning of Code § 19.2-327. Neither is a…”
In Re: Mario Russell Pierce, 606 S.E.2d 536 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “2, the petitioner must assert the existence of evidence, previously unknown or unavailable to him, that proves “no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt[.”
Neal v. Commonwealth's Attorney, 60 Va. Cir. 440 (2003). “” In accordance with the provisions of § 19.2-327, once Neal’s motion was received and filed by the Clerk, 1 a copy was served on the Attorney for the Commonwealth.”
Watson v. Clarke (E.D. Va. 2022). · cites it 2× “4:1 and (2) there is no physical or biological evidence in existence that could thereafter be tested pursuant to Section 19.2-327. Accordingly, the Court denies the defendant’s motion for Preservation of Human Biological Evidence for failure to state a claim upon which relief…”
Thomas Haynesworth v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “However, in order to do so, the majority must either authorize the Attorney General, in his discretion, to consent to the issuance of a writ of actual innocence in cases in which such writs would not otherwise issue or ignore the plain meaning of Code § 19.2-327. Neither is a…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-327(A) — 1 case
In Re: Mario Russell Pierce, 606 S.E.2d 536 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). “2, the petitioner must assert the existence of evidence, previously unknown or unavailable to him, that proves “no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt[.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-327(A)(vii) — 1 case
Carpitcher v. Com., 641 S.E.2d 486 (Va. 2007). “'s trial testimony was perjured, which we have held is not part of the "materiality" analysis under Code § 19.2-327(A)(vii). Carpitcher next argues that the Court of Appeals denied him procedural due process in refusing to permit him to file an additional brief challenging the…”
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.