COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Annunziata
Argued by teleconference
NADINE ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1938-98-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JULY 20, 1999
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY
Leonard B. Sachs, Judge Designate
Dawne I. Alexander for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
On appeal from a probation revocation hearing, Nadine Adams
contends that the trial court violated her due process rights
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by refusing to allow
her to testify. Because Adams did not object to this ruling and
made no proffer of what her testimony would be, we decline to
address the issue and affirm the ruling of the trial court.
On October 2, 1991, Adams was convicted of uttering a
forged check and was sentenced to three years imprisonment, all
of which was suspended on condition, inter alia, that she "shall
be of good behavior and not violate any of the laws of the
[Commonwealth] of Virginia, County of Gloucester, United States
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
of America, any state, or any political subdivision thereof for
[five years]." Subsequently, she was convicted of multiple
misdemeanors and of possession of cocaine. On July 6, 1998, a
hearing was held for Adams to show cause why the 1991 suspension
should not be revoked. After Len Respass, a probation and
parole officer, testified to Adams’ subsequent convictions,
defense counsel called Adams to the stand.
The trial court did not refuse to allow Adams to testify,
but rather stated that, unless she were going to deny her
convictions, her testimony would be inconsequential. Defense
counsel responded:
Well, Your Honor, the Court recognizes
I’m under the lamentable position that my
client has, in fact, violated the conditions
of her probation. I would only ask -- my
intention was to put her on for some manner
of mitigation, Judge. But under the
circumstances, I would just ask the Court
that all the malfeasance of which she has
subsequently been involved in, nothing has
involved violence to anyone else or
endangerment of any person. And I would ask
the Court to have mercy and be lenient upon
her.
Defense counsel neither objected to the trial court’s
remarks nor proffered Adams’ testimony. Thus, Adams has failed
to preserve this issue for appeal. "No ruling of the trial
court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless
the objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at
the time of the ruling . . . ." Rule 5A:18. See also Jacques
v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631
- 2 -
(1991). This rule extends to claimed errors that deny
constitutional rights. "We refuse to address the constitutional
question because the defendant did not raise it in the trial
court." Cottrell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 570, 574, 405
S.E.2d 438, 441 (1991).
"Under Rule 5A:18, we do not consider trial court error as
a basis for reversal where no timely objection was made except
in extraordinary situations to attain the ends of justice."
Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220, 487 S.E.2d 269,
272 (1997). We find no reason to invoke that exception here, as
nothing in the record indicates that Adams suffered a judgment
that was unlawful.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -