COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, Frank and Senior Judge Bray
DARRELL WILLIAMS, S/K/A
DARRELL WAYNE WILLIAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0636-02-1 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
FEBRUARY 11, 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK
William H. Hodges, Judge Designate
(Schoen R. Parnell; Christopher P. Reagan, on
brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting
on brief.
(Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General;
Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee
submitting on brief.
Darrell Wayne Williams (appellant) was convicted in a bench
trial of driving after having been declared an habitual offender,
second or subsequent offense, in violation of Code § 46.2-357. On
appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion
for a continuance so that the judge who accepted his guilty plea
could sentence him. 1 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial
court's judgment.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
While appellant also argues the matter should have been
continued for other reasons, the appeal was denied on the
additional reasons. Therefore, we will not consider those
reasons. See Code § 17.1-407(D); Rule 5A:15.
The precise issue before us, i.e., the question granted from
appellant's petition for appeal, is "Did appellant have a right to
be sentenced by a judge who was familiar with him and his
situation, i.e. the trial judge?" (Emphasis added.) This
argument was not preserved at trial.
In his motion for a continuance, appellant's counsel argued:
All three of our judges are somewhat
familiar with my client. Some more than
others. I understand your Honor probably
has never seen Mr. Williams before. He's
got a fairly extensive and serious medical
condition, which I would like the court to
take a little bit of time in reviewing the
medical documentation. Because you're not
familiar with my client I might ask the
court to at least, for this reason, to
reconsider my motion to continue for a
couple of weeks. I'm out the next two
weeks, but right beyond that we might be
able to get one of our judges who is
familiar with Mr. Williams and his
condition, and might be able to consider
that.
Counsel did not argue that he had a right to be sentenced
by the original judge who took the plea. Indeed, by suggesting
that the other judges of that circuit were "somewhat familiar
with my client" and basing his motion for a continuance on that
fact, appellant clearly indicated he would accept being
sentenced by a judge other than the original judge. We,
therefore, will not address appellant's contention that he had a
right to be sentenced by the original trial judge. See Rule
5A:18; Clark v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 406, 411-12, 517
S.E.2d 260, 262 (1999). "On appeal, though taking the same
- 2 -
general position as in the trial court, an appellant may not
rely on reasons which could have been but were not raised for
the benefit of the lower court." West Alexandria Prop., Inc. v.
First Virginia Mortgage & Real Estate Inv. Trust, 221 Va. 134,
138, 267 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1980).
As appellant did not preserve the argument granted on
appeal, we affirm his conviction.
Affirmed.
- 3 -