Child Pornography Lee Virginia Image Possession Minor Delinquency Lawyer
Child Pornography Lee Virginia Image Possession Minor Delinquency Lawyer
Commonwealth v. Philip
Facts:
Defendant was charged with the felonious possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. The Commonwealth contended that defendant possessed a photograph image of a student under the age of 18 years on his cell phone and on his computer. A single photograph was tendered to the court and made a part of the record under seal. Defendant moved to dismiss.
Child Pornography Lee Virginia Image Possession Minor Delinquency Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether defendant possessed a photograph image of a student under the age of 18?
Discussions:
The photograph depicted a female from the top of the breasts to mid thigh. The arms of the female are clasped across the breasts, exposing a small portion of the areola of one and possibly two breasts. Due to the grainy nature of the photograph it was unclear whether one nipple was visible. She may have beneath her upper torso an article of clothing that may have been raised to expose a portion of the breast. Otherwise the female form was sufficiently clad to completely cover the pubic area.
The evidence failed to support a finding that the offending material satisfied the element of a sexually explicit showing of a lewd exhibition of nudity required under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1. As a matter of law, the photograph did not meet the requirements established by the Virginia appellate courts for child pornography. Defendant was also charged with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor because it was alleged that defendant caused a student to transmit the photograph to his cell phone and to his computer. Those two charges were dependent upon a finding that the photograph constituted child pornography.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Sex-offender Treatment Therapy Clarke County Virginia Probation Lawyers
Sex-offender Treatment Therapy Clarke County Virginia Probation Lawyers
X v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Fact:
Defendant was indicted for the rape of a child less than 13 years, a violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61. Defendant entered an Alford plea and was placed on probation. As part of his court-ordered sex-offender treatment therapy, he was required to admit his guilt, but refused to do so. On appeal, defendant argued that the requirement was a breach of his Alford plea agreement.
Sex-offender Treatment Therapy Clarke County Virginia Probation Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether a person charged with rape who enters an Alford plea and is placed on probation violates the terms of his probation by refusing to admit his guilt during the course of ordered treatment for sex offenders?
Discussion:
Defendant’s statement of the questions presented did not contain the words “breach” or “plea agreement” and, pursuant to Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:12(c), 5:17(c), and 5:25, the appellate court declined to consider the argument concerning a breach of the plea agreement. The trial court did not err as a matter of law in revoking defendant’s probation because he violated the terms of his probation by refusing to admit his guilty during treatment. His failure to receive warning at the time he entered the Alford plea that such a refusal could have resulted in revocation was a collateral, not a direct, consequence of the plea. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion or act unreasonably in refusing to allow defendant to be treated in an unsupervised situation by someone not versed in sex offender treatment. The court affirmed the judgment.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Forcible Sodomy Virginia Abduction Conviction Lawyers Clarke County
Forcible Sodomy Virginia Abduction Conviction Lawyers Clarke County
Williams v. Commonwealth
Facts:
A jury in the Circuit Court of Clarke County (Virginia) convicted defendant of abduction with intent to defile (Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-48), rape, and two counts of forcible sodomy. Defendant challenged only the abduction conviction, contending the evidence was insufficient to prove his detention of the victim was separate and apart from that which was necessary for the commission of the other three offenses.
Forcible Sodomy Virginia Abduction Conviction Lawyers
Issue:
- For the abduction conviction whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Defendant’s detention of the victim was separate and apart from that which was necessary for the commission of the other three offenses?
Discussion:
The appeals court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove as a matter of law that defendant’s abduction-detention of the victim was separate and distinct from the restraint inherent in the crimes of rape and forcible sodomy. The trial court thus correctly denied defendant’s motion to set aside his abduction conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence. Defendant clearly restricted the victim’s liberty, with the intent to defile her, by the use of force far in excess of that inherent in the commission of rape and sodomy where he twice choked her to the point of unconsciousness. Those acts substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim. The very act of choking the victim with such force posed a risk of serious physical injury, if not death. Moreover, once the victim was rendered unconscious, she could no longer cry out for help, thereby decreasing the possibility that defendant would be detected. Defendant further avoided detection by locking the door to the victim’s apartment after forcing his way into the apartment. Finally, defendant detained the victim for a significant period of time during the criminal episode, ranging from thirty-five to forty minutes. The judgment was affirmed
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Sodomy Virginia Forcible Licensed Psychiatrist Attorneys Chesterfield County
Sodomy Virginia Forcible Licensed Psychiatrist Attorneys Chesterfield County
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allan Paul
Facts:
Defendant had two convictions for forcible sodomy. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the circuit court erred in qualifying a licensed clinical psychiatrist as an expert because she was not skilled in the treatment of the mental conditions she diagnosed defendant with. The Commonwealth filed a petition requesting that defendant be civilly committed pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 37.2-900 through 920. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County (Virginia) entered final judgment holding that defendant was not a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. The Commonwealth appealed.
Sodomy Virginia Forcible Licensed Psychiatrist Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the circuit court erred in qualifying a witness to testify as an expert under the Sexually Violent Predators Act?
Discussion:
The Supreme Court finds that Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-907(A) required the psychiatrist to demonstrate skill in both diagnosis and treatment of the stated mental conditions, and that she did not meet the skill in treatment requirement. The Commonwealth also argued that the circuit court erred in concluding that the Commonwealth failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant was a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the evidence, as a matter of law, provided clear and convincing proof that defendant was a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act. Among other things, the Commonwealth’s expert testified that defendant estimated he may have abused young boys as many as 100 times and that defendant’s personality disorder might prevent him from seeking treatment for his problems. The judgment of the circuit court was reversed. Judgment was entered for the Commonwealth that defendant was a sexually violent predator as defined by the Act and the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether defendant should be fully committed or placed on conditional release.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Photograph Student Attorneys Henrico County
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Photograph Student Attorneys Henrico County
Commonwealth v. Yale
Facts:
Defendant was charged with the felonious possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. The Commonwealth contended that defendant possessed a photograph image of a student under the age of 18 years on his cell phone and on his computer. A single photograph was tendered to the court and made a part of the record under seal. Defendant moved to dismiss.
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Photograph Student Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether defendant possessed a photograph image of a student under the age of 18?
Discussions:
The photograph depicted a female from the top of the breasts to mid thigh. The arms of the female are clasped across the breasts, exposing a small portion of the areola of one and possibly two breasts. Due to the grainy nature of the photograph it was unclear whether one nipple was visible. She may have beneath her upper torso an article of clothing that may have been raised to expose a portion of the breast. Otherwise the female form was sufficiently clad to completely cover the pubic area. The evidence failed to support a finding that the offending material satisfied the element of a sexually explicit showing of a lewd exhibition of nudity required under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1. As a matter of law, the photograph did not meet the requirements established by the Virginia appellate courts for child pornography. Defendant was also charged with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor because it was alleged that defendant caused a student to transmit the photograph to his cell phone and to his computer. Those two charges were dependent upon a finding that the photograph constituted child pornography.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Rape Virginia Convicted Treatment Probation Lawyers Bland County
Rape Virginia Convicted Treatment Probation Lawyers Bland County
Keith v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant, a convicted rapist, was found in violation of his probation for his refusal to admit his guilt during the course of ordered treatment for sex offenders. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Defendant appealed.
Rape Virginia Convicted Treatment Probation Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or acted unreasonably?
Discussions:
Defendant was indicted for the rape of a child less than 13 years, a violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-61. Defendant entered an Alford plea and was placed on probation. As part of his court-ordered sex-offender treatment therapy, he was required to admit his guilt, but refused to do so. On appeal, defendant argued that the requirement was a breach of his Alford plea agreement. However, his statement of the questions presented did not contain the words “breach” or “plea agreement” and, pursuant to Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:12(c), 5:17(c), and 5:25, the appellate court declined to consider the argument concerning a breach of the plea agreement. The trial court did not err as a matter of law in revoking defendant’s probation because he violated the terms of his probation by refusing to admit his guilty during treatment. His failure to receive warning at the time he entered the Alford plea that such a refusal could have resulted in revocation was a collateral, not a direct, consequence of the plea. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion or act unreasonably in refusing to allow defendant to be treated in an unsupervised situation by someone not versed in sex offender treatment.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
