Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

JOHN FITZGERALD GASTON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Plaintiff filed a motion in circuit court pursuant to Code § 19.2-327.1, seeking post-trial scientific analysis of certain evidence. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion. After an appeal was awarded the parties were directed to brief the issue whether there is jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

1. Subsection G of Code § 19.2-327.1 expressly states that "[a]n action under this section . . . shall not form the basis for relief in any habeas corpus proceeding or any other appeal."

2. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, a court may look only to the words used in the statute to ascertain its meaning and intent.

3. The language used in Code § 19.2-327.1 (G) is clear and unambiguous and means that a circuit court's ruling under Code § 19.2-327.1 is unappealable. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM.

John Fitzgerald Gaston filed a motion in the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, pursuant to Code § 19.2-327.1, seeking post-trial scientific analysis of certain evidence. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied Gaston's motion. On February 5, 2003, we awarded Gaston this appeal and also directed the parties to brief the issue "whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal." We conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction.

Subsection G of Code § 19.2-327.1 expressly states, in pertinent part, that "[a]n action under this section . . . shall not form the basis for relief in any habeas corpus proceeding or any other appeal." When a statute is clear and unambiguous, a court may look only to the words used in the statute to ascertain its meaning and intent. Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Quillian, 264 Va. 656, 665, 571 S.E.2d 122, 126 (2002); Harrison Bates, Inc. v. Featherstone Assoc., 253 Va. 364, 368, 484 S.E.2d 883, 885 (1997). The language used in Code § 19.2-327.1(G) is clear and unambiguous and means that a circuit court's ruling under Code § 19.2-327.1 is unappealable. Consequently, we will dismiss Gaston's appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GASTON v. COMMONWEALTH
(Sep 12, 2003)