Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant, convicted of cocaine possession and possessing a firearm while in possession of cocaine, challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the imposition of a mandatory five-year sentence. The case arose from a police search initiated by a reliable informant's tip. The appellant argued the tip lacked temporal specificity, but the trial court found the informant's reliability and the police's prompt response adequate for establishing probable cause. On appeal, the court reviewed the suppression motion favorably to the Commonwealth, affirming the trial court's historical fact findings unless plainly wrong. The trial court's decision to impose a mandatory sentence under Code § 18.2-308.4 was also contested, but the court upheld the sentence, citing statutory requirements and legislative history. The appellate court confirmed the trial court's rulings, maintaining that the appellant's implied objections during sentencing were sufficient for consideration under Rule 5A:18. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed, and the appellant's convictions and sentence were upheld.
Legal Issues Addressed
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Under Code § 18.2-308.4subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's imposition of a mandatory minimum five-year sentence for possession of a firearm while possessing cocaine was upheld, as dictated by the statute.
Reasoning: Code § 18.2-308.4 criminalizes the unlawful possession of a firearm by individuals who are also unlawfully in possession of controlled substances classified as Schedule I or II, and it prohibits the use or display of firearms during the illegal manufacture, sale, or distribution of such substances.
Preservation of Objections for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Askew's failure to object during re-sentencing was addressed, with the court finding that his objection was sufficiently implied for the trial court's consideration.
Reasoning: The court addressed Askew's argument that he did not raise an objection during the re-sentencing hearing, finding that he sufficiently implied his objection for the trial court's consideration.
Standard of Review for Suppression Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: On appeal, the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, with de novo review of reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations.
Reasoning: When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, evidence is considered favorably to the prevailing party, here the Commonwealth, and all reasonable inferences are granted.
Suppression of Evidence and Reasonable Suspicionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress was based on the informant's reliable tip and the rapid response of the police, which established probable cause.
Reasoning: The trial court denied the motion, believing the timing of the police response was adequate given the informant's reliability.