Stevie Adams v Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Willis, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
STEVIE ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 0641-99-2 	JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
MAY 16, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY
William H. Ledbetter, Jr., Judge
Martin W. Lester, Deputy Public Defender, for
appellant.
Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
The trial court revoked a previously suspended sentence
upon the defendant's stipulation that he violated the terms of
his probation. 	On appeal for the first time, the defendant
contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his
suspended sentence because the Commonwealth failed to notify his
biological father of the original proceedings in the juvenile
and domestic relations district court pursuant to former Code
§§ 16.1-263 and -264.
The defendant was charged in the juvenile and domestic
relations district court with possession of cocaine with intent

to distribute. 	The offense date was March 26, 1997. 	The
juvenile and domestic relations district court found probable
cause and transferred the case to the circuit court. 	Adams
appealed the transfer decision, but the circuit court found the
transfer appropriate and authorized the Commonwealth to seek an
indictment. 	A grand jury indicted the defendant, and the
circuit court tried the defendant with a jury, which convicted
of the lesser-included offense of possession of cocaine.
Moore v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 405, 410, __ S.E.2d __, __
(2000), held that Code § 16.1-269.1(E) cured a defect in a
juvenile court proceeding resulting from failure to notify the
defendant's father of the proceedings pursuant to Code
§§ 16.1-263 and -264. 	Code § 16.1-269.1(E) applies to offenses
committed after July 1, 1996. 	This offense occurred after that
date, and a grand jury indicted the defendant. 	Accordingly, the
indictment cured any defect that occurred, and we affirm the
revocation.
Affirmed.
- 2 -