Rashourn Ezekiel Niles v Commonwealth of Virginia

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Willis and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

RASHOURN EZEKIEL NILES
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
Vv. Record No. 2428-97-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, OR.
OCTOBER 27, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
William T. Newman, Jr., Judge
Bobby B. Stafford (Kathryn E. Coward; The Law
Offices of Raby & Stafford, on brief), for
appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.

Rashourn Ezekiel Niles contends that the trial court
improperly applied Code § 16.1-272, in violation of his equal
protection rights, and thereby divested itself of jurisdiction.

Niles, a juvenile offender, was properly transferred to the
jurisdiction of the trial court. He entered a guilty plea
pursuant to a plea agreement and was convicted of two counts of
robbery, two counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a
robbery, and one count of malicious wounding. He argues that his
equal protection rights were violated at sentencing because the
trial court did not consider Code § 16.1-283 when applying Code

§ 16.1-272.°

"Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

‘Code § 16.1-272, titled "Power of circuit court over
juvenile offender," provides in part for the sentencing of a

- 2 -
No transcript or statement of facts was filed timely. 	Niles
asserts that the sentencing orders are sufficient to support his
assignment of error. 	Thus, any objections made and the reasons
stated therefor must appear on the face of the sentencing orders.
See Rule 5A:18. 	See also Jacques v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App.
591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991).
We cannot assume that Niles' counsel objected at the
sentencing hearing, nor can we assume the process relied upon by
the trial court in determining Niles' sentences. 	See Lee v. Lee,
12 Va. App. 512, 516-17, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738-39 (1991). 	The
orders show no objection by Niles' counsel, nor do they mention
the statutes that Niles calls into issue. 	Niles asks us to
assume not only that appropriate objections were made, but also
that grounds for such objections exist. 	We cannot make such an
assumption.
No lack of the trial court's jurisdiction is apparent on the
face of the sentencing orders. 	The record reflects no objection
by Niles to the sentences on constitutional grounds. 	Thus, that
question is waived on appeal. 	Cottrell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.
App. 570, 574, 405 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1991).
(..continued)
juvenile offender being tried as an adult. 	Code § 16.1-285.1,
"Commitment of serious offenders," provides guidelines for the
commitment of a serious juvenile offender.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.