Summary
Justice Mims reluctantly concurs in the refusal to apply the ends-of-justice exception to Virginia Rule 5:25. The concurrence explains that the trial court complied with the applicable insanity-acquittal statutes but argues that those statutes inadequately address the sequencing of incarceration and hospitalization and do not clearly require correctional authorities to seek inpatient treatment. Justice Mims urges the General Assembly to address these statutory deficiencies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Virginia should apply the ends-of-justice exception to Rule 5:25 to review Williams's unpreserved challenge to the sequence of his incarceration and involuntary civil commitment.
- Whether ordering Williams to serve his prison sentence before his involuntary civil commitment constituted a grave injustice.
- Whether the sequencing of incarceration before commitment violated due process or otherwise deprived Williams of necessary mental-health treatment.
Holdings
- The ends-of-justice exception to Rule 5:25 does not apply where the alleged error does not result in a grave injustice.
- The circuit court's decision to require Williams to serve his prison sentence before his involuntary civil commitment did not constitute a grave injustice warranting reversal.
- The sentencing and commitment proceedings satisfied due process.
Key quotations
“This Court considers two questions when deciding whether to apply the ends of justice exception: (1) whether there is error as contended by the appellant; and (2) whether the failure to apply the ends of justice provision would result in a grave injustice.” (at 28)
“There is no statutory direction concerning the proper sequence of the imposition of his incarceration for the criminal conviction in relation to his involuntary civil commitment for different crimes he committed during his subsequent period of temporary insanity.” (at 29)
“In serving that five-year sentence, he is not being punished because he has a mental illness, but because of a crime he committed before his alleged temporary state of insanity and to which he pled guilty after he had recovered from his purported temporary state of insanity.” (at 29)
Factual background
Williams committed a felony assault and battery against his wife in July 2014 and later committed additional offenses against her in August 2014. He pleaded guilty to the July offense and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to the August offenses. After evaluation, the circuit court ordered him involuntarily committed for inpatient treatment, but directed that he serve a five-year prison sentence for the July offense before beginning the civil commitment.
Procedural history
A Richmond grand jury indicted Williams for felony assault and battery of a family member, third or subsequent offense, arising from a July 2014 incident, and for another assault-and-battery offense and attempted murder arising from an August 2014 incident. Williams pleaded guilty to the July offense and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to the August offenses. The circuit court sentenced him to five years' incarceration for the July offense and ordered inpatient involuntary civil commitment for the August offenses after his release from prison. The Supreme Court of Virginia declined to apply the ends-of-justice exception to the preservation rule and affirmed.