A. 1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum may be filed in the Supreme Court or any circuit court showing by affidavits or other evidence that the petitioner is detained without lawful authority.
2. A petition for writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, other than a petition challenging a criminal conviction or sentence, shall be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues. A habeas corpus petition attacking a criminal conviction or sentence shall be filed within two years from the date of final judgment in the trial court or within one year from either final disposition of the direct appeal in state court or the time for filing such appeal has expired, whichever is later.
B. 1. With respect to any such petition filed by a petitioner whose detention originated under criminal process, and subject to the provisions of § 17.1-310, only the circuit court that entered the original judgment or order resulting in the detention complained of in the petition shall have authority to issue writs of habeas corpus. If a district court entered the original judgment or order resulting in the detention complained of in the petition, only the circuit court for the city or county wherein the district court sits shall have authority to issue writs of habeas corpus. Hearings on such petition, where granted in the circuit court, may be held at any circuit court within the same circuit as the circuit court in which the petition was filed, as designated by the judge thereof.
2. Such petition shall contain all allegations the facts of which are known to petitioner at the time of filing and such petition shall enumerate all previous applications and their disposition. No writ shall be granted on the basis of any allegation the facts of which petitioner had knowledge at the time of filing any previous petition. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a petitioner's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the sole allegation of such petition is that the petitioner was deprived of the right to pursue an appeal from a final judgment of conviction or probation revocation, except that such petition shall contain all facts pertinent to the denial of appeal that are known to the petitioner at the time of the filing, and such petition shall certify that the petitioner has filed no prior habeas corpus petitions attacking the conviction or probation revocation.
3. Such petition may allege detention without lawful authority through challenge to a conviction, although the sentence imposed for such conviction is suspended or is to be served subsequently to the sentence currently being served by petitioner.
4. In the event the allegations of illegality of the petitioner's detention can be fully determined on the basis of recorded matters, the court may make its determination whether such writ should issue on the basis of the record.
5. The court shall give findings of fact and conclusions of law following a determination on the record or after hearing, to be made a part of the record and transcribed.
6. If petitioner alleges as a ground for illegality of his detention the inadequacy of counsel, he shall be deemed to waive his privilege with respect to communications between such counsel and himself to the extent necessary to permit a full and fair hearing for the alleged ground.
Code 1950, § 8-596; 1958, c. 215; 1968, c. 487; 1977, c. 617; 1978, c. 124; 1995, c. 503; 1998, c. 577; 2005, c. 836; 2019, cc. 8, 48; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 344, 345.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
423
cases (
161 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
Dorsey v. Angelone, 544 S.E.2d 350 (Va. 2001).
Dorsey v. Angelone, 544 S.E.2d 350 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 46× “The hypotheticals posited above reflect the consequences of the plain meaning of the text of Code § 8.01-654. If, as suggested by the dissent, the General Assembly did not intend such results, it, most likely, will reconsider the provisions of the statute.”
Hill v. Commonwealth, 379 S.E.2d 134 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 36× “2d 698 (1983), "did not completely shut the door to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal," the majority opinion misinterprets both Walker and Code § 8.01-654. In Walker , our Supreme Court recognized the availability of habeas corpus remedies specified in…”
Lovitt v. Warden, Sussex I State Prison, 585 S.E.2d 801 (Va. 2003).
· cites it 12× “Under Code § 8.01-654, Lovitt filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Sussex I State Prison (the warden).”
Carroll v. Johnson, 685 S.E.2d 647 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 14× “Code § 8.01-654(A)(1) provides: The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum shall be granted forthwith by the Supreme Court or any circuit court, to any person who shall apply for the same by petition, showing by affidavits or other evidence *652 probable cause to believe that he…”
Haas v. Lee, 560 S.E.2d 256 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 22× “The sole issue that we consider in this appeal is whether the circuit court properly dismissed a petition for writ of habeas corpus because it was not filed timely pursuant to Code § 8.01-654(A)(2). This statute, which became effective July 1, 1998, states: “A petition for writ…”
Hedrick v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 570 S.E.2d 840 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 12× “The circuit court conducted the evidentiary hearing required by Code § 8.01-654(C), and submitted a very thorough and exhaustive written report that contained its findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 16× “12” should be treated by Virginia’s appellate courts, the Supreme Court of Virginia established the analytic framework to be applied, mandating that “[s]uch factual findings are similar to circuit court findings made under Code § 8.01-654(0 in habeas corpus cases in which [the…”
Baker v. Clarke, 95 F. Supp. 3d 913 (E.D. Va. 2015).
· cites it 16× “The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the petition on May 1, 2014 as time-barred, pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-654(A)(2). Baker v. Clarke, R.”
Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996).
· cites it 4× “The Commonwealth alleged that the Brady subclaim had not been presented to the state courts on direct appeal or in state habeas corpus proceedings, and was thus procedurally barred under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654 (B)(2) (1992). Respondent's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss,…”
Lewis v. Warden of Fluvanna, 645 S.E.2d 492 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 10× “Lewis made several claims, including that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to conduct an adequate investigation of mitigation evidence and counsel's further failure to present such mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of her…”
Robert W Szymczak, II v. Laura M Kane, 585 S.E.2d 349 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See Interstate 1 Virginia requires "findings of fact" and "conclusions of law" in Code § 8.01-654 (circuit court decisions on petitions for writ of habeas corpus), § 10.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(A) — 10 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(A)(1) — 21 cases
Carroll v. Johnson, 685 S.E.2d 647 (Va. 2009).
“Code § 8.01-654(A)(1) provides: The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum shall be granted forthwith by the Supreme Court or any circuit court, to any person who shall apply for the same by petition, showing by affidavits or other evidence *652 probable cause to believe that he…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(A)(2) — 135 cases
Haas v. Lee, 560 S.E.2d 256 (Va. 2002).
“The sole issue that we consider in this appeal is whether the circuit court properly dismissed a petition for writ of habeas corpus because it was not filed timely pursuant to Code § 8.01-654(A)(2). This statute, which became effective July 1, 1998, states: “A petition for writ…”
Baker v. Clarke, 95 F. Supp. 3d 913 (E.D. Va. 2015).
“The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the petition on May 1, 2014 as time-barred, pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-654(A)(2). Baker v. Clarke, R.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B) — 11 cases
Hill v. Commonwealth, 379 S.E.2d 134 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
“2d 698 (1983), "did not completely shut the door to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal," the majority opinion misinterprets both Walker and Code § 8.01-654. In Walker , our Supreme Court recognized the availability of habeas corpus remedies specified in…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(1) — 6 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(2) — 124 cases
Dorsey v. Angelone, 544 S.E.2d 350 (Va. 2001).
“The hypotheticals posited above reflect the consequences of the plain meaning of the text of Code § 8.01-654. If, as suggested by the dissent, the General Assembly did not intend such results, it, most likely, will reconsider the provisions of the statute.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(3) — 10 cases
Carroll v. Johnson, 685 S.E.2d 647 (Va. 2009).
“Code § 8.01-654(A)(1) provides: The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum shall be granted forthwith by the Supreme Court or any circuit court, to any person who shall apply for the same by petition, showing by affidavits or other evidence *652 probable cause to believe that he…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(4) — 24 cases
Hill v. Commonwealth, 379 S.E.2d 134 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
“2d 698 (1983), "did not completely shut the door to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal," the majority opinion misinterprets both Walker and Code § 8.01-654. In Walker , our Supreme Court recognized the availability of habeas corpus remedies specified in…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(5) — 8 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(6) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(C) — 13 cases
Lovitt v. Warden, Sussex I State Prison, 585 S.E.2d 801 (Va. 2003).
“Under Code § 8.01-654, Lovitt filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Sussex I State Prison (the warden).”
Hedrick v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 570 S.E.2d 840 (Va. 2002).
“The circuit court conducted the evidentiary hearing required by Code § 8.01-654(C), and submitted a very thorough and exhaustive written report that contained its findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“12” should be treated by Virginia’s appellate courts, the Supreme Court of Virginia established the analytic framework to be applied, mandating that “[s]uch factual findings are similar to circuit court findings made under Code § 8.01-654(0 in habeas corpus cases in which [the…”
Lewis v. Warden of Fluvanna, 645 S.E.2d 492 (Va. 2007).
“Lewis made several claims, including that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to conduct an adequate investigation of mitigation evidence and counsel's further failure to present such mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of her…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(C)(1) — 3 cases
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“12” should be treated by Virginia’s appellate courts, the Supreme Court of Virginia established the analytic framework to be applied, mandating that “[s]uch factual findings are similar to circuit court findings made under Code § 8.01-654(0 in habeas corpus cases in which [the…”
Hedrick v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 570 S.E.2d 840 (Va. 2002).
“The circuit court conducted the evidentiary hearing required by Code § 8.01-654(C), and submitted a very thorough and exhaustive written report that contained its findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(C)(2) — 1 case
Hedrick v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 570 S.E.2d 840 (Va. 2002).
“The circuit court conducted the evidentiary hearing required by Code § 8.01-654(C), and submitted a very thorough and exhaustive written report that contained its findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(C)(3) — 5 cases
Lovitt v. Warden, Sussex I State Prison, 585 S.E.2d 801 (Va. 2003).
“Under Code § 8.01-654, Lovitt filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Sussex I State Prison (the warden).”
Hedrick v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 570 S.E.2d 840 (Va. 2002).
“The circuit court conducted the evidentiary hearing required by Code § 8.01-654(C), and submitted a very thorough and exhaustive written report that contained its findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.”
Lewis v. Warden of Fluvanna, 645 S.E.2d 492 (Va. 2007).
“Lewis made several claims, including that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to conduct an adequate investigation of mitigation evidence and counsel's further failure to present such mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of her…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(a)(1) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(b)(2) — 4 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(b)(3) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(c)(1) — 2 cases
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.