Steven McCalla v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Steven McCalla v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Court of Appeals of Virginia · May 12, 2026 · No. 1630-24-4

Summary

The Virginia Court of Appeals holds that unlawful wounding and malicious wounding charges arising from the same conduct constitute the same offense for purposes of Virginia's statutory speedy-trial provision. The court nevertheless applies precedent providing that a superseding indictment resets the speedy-trial clock when obtained before the original clock expires. Because competency-evaluation proceedings tolled the original clock, the court affirms the denial of McCalla's motion to dismiss.

Court
Court of Appeals of Virginia
Writing for the Court
Lisa M. Lorish; Ortiz; Raphael; Lorish
Jurisdiction
Virginia Court of Appeals
Decision date
May 12, 2026
Docket number
1630-24-4
Procedural posture
McCalla appealed from the circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss on statutory speedy-trial grounds. He entered a conditional guilty plea to the lesser-included offense of unlawful wounding and reserved the right to appeal the speedy-trial ruling.
Standard of review
A statutory speedy-trial challenge presents a mixed question of law and fact. Legal questions are reviewed de novo, while the trial court's factual findings receive deference and will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or unsupported by evidence.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
Steven McCalla v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

speedy trialcriminal procedurestatutory interpretationappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the unlawful-wounding and malicious-wounding indictments charged the same offense for purposes of Virginia Code § 19.2-243.
  2. Whether a superseding indictment for the same offense resets the statutory speedy-trial clock when it is obtained before the original clock expires after accounting for applicable tolling periods.
  3. Whether McCalla's competency evaluation tolled the statutory speedy-trial period.

Holdings

  1. For purposes of Virginia's statutory speedy-trial law, an offense includes charges based on the same act or transaction. The unlawful-wounding and malicious-wounding indictments therefore charged the same offense because both arose from McCalla's injuring Temme.
  2. When a second indictment relating to the same offense is obtained before the statutory speedy-trial clock expires on the original indictment, the second indictment resets the speedy-trial clock.
  3. The competency evaluation requested by McCalla tolled the statutory speedy-trial period because the trial court found that it caused a delay in the trial, and that finding was supported by credible evidence.

Key quotations

“offense” means the same “act or transaction” (at 7)
In Virginia, so long as a second indictment relating to the same offense underlying an earlier indictment is brought before the speedy trial clock ran on that earlier indictment, the speedy trial clock resets. (at 15)
Because there is credible evidence in the record to support the trial court’s factual finding that the competency evaluation tolled the speedy trial period, we find that the Commonwealth has carried its burden to show that the second indictment occurred within the statutory speedy trial period. (at 17)

Factual background

McCalla was arrested in November 2021 after injuring Ryan Temme and remained in custody while undergoing competency evaluations. The Commonwealth indicted him for unlawful wounding on June 26, 2023, but after McCalla declined to plead guilty and requested a jury trial, the Commonwealth obtained a superseding malicious-wounding indictment on December 18, 2023. McCalla moved to dismiss, arguing that both indictments concerned the same offense and that the five-month statutory speedy-trial period had expired. The circuit court concluded that the competency evaluation tolled the clock and denied dismissal.

Procedural history

McCalla was first indicted for unlawful wounding and was later indicted for malicious wounding after the Commonwealth continued the trial and obtained a superseding indictment. The circuit court found that a competency evaluation tolled the statutory speedy-trial period, denied McCalla's motion to dismiss, and nolle prossed the unlawful-wounding indictment. McCalla then entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…