RSS Feed

12-17-2012 – Virginia granted writ for appeal in civil rights case

Summary – The law firm has argued that the state is not free to unilaterally modify its contracts or breach the provisions with impunity, including plea bargains. In this case, the State modified the registry requirements for a sex offender, reclassifying a non-violent offense to a violent offense in order to obtain from the federal government the return of tax dollars to Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of the Circuit Court’s dismissal of the claims.

If you would like to assist Mr. Smith with his legal bills, do so by a donation to Freedom Works Foundation, through this website.

JEREMY WADE SMITH v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
(Record Number 121579)

From

The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond; C. Jenkins, Judge.

Counsel

Thomas H. Roberts and Andrew T. Bodoh (Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C.) for appellant.

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II and Charles A. Quagliato (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee.

Assignments of Error

1. The Circuit Court erred in denying Mr. Smith’s motion for summary judgment as to Count I (Breach of Contract – Request for Specific Performance) and granting summary judgment to the Defendant on that Count, because the sex offender registration requirements and limitations effective in 1999 were material terms of Mr. Smith’s contract with the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth breached by unilaterally imposing higher registration requirements on him in violation of the common law of Virginia.

2. The Circuit Court erred by interpreting the post-conviction legislative amendments as applicable to Mr. Smith in derogation of his vested contractual rights, in violation of Virginia Code § 1-239 and Article I, § 11 of the Virginia Constitution.

3. The Circuit Court erred in denying Mr. Smith’s motion for summary judgment as to Count II (Unconstitutional Taking) and granting summary judgment to the Defendant on that Count, because depriving Mr. Smith of his common law contractual rights under his plea agreement without just compensation constituted an unconstitutional taking in violation of Art I (Declaration of Rights) § 11 of the Virginia Constitution.

4. The Circuit Court erred in denying Mr. Smith’s motion for summary judgment as to Count III (Due Process Violation) and granting summary judgment to the Defendant on that Count, because depriving Mr. Smith of his common law contractual rights under his plea agreement without a hearing and depriving Mr. Smith of the benefit of his bargain constituted a deprivation of property without due process in violation of Art I (Declaration of Rights) § 11 of the Virginia Constitution.

6. The Circuit Court erred in denying Mr. Smith’s motion for summary judgment as to Count IV (Permanent Injunction) and Count V (Petition for Expungement Hearing) and granting summary judgment to the Defendant on those Counts on the basis that there was no contractual or constitutional violation, because those violations have been established.

Date Granted

12-17-2012

Reference: Virginia Supreme Court

To discuss assistance from this firm, you should contact the firm immediately due to the time constraints.

Attorney Andrew T. Bodoh is a skilled appeals attorney who has argued numerous cases before the Virginia Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Attorney Jonathan M. Arthur is a skilled appeals attorney who has argued numerous cases before the Virginia Supreme Court and Virginia Court of Appeals

Contact Us Immediately!

The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. has attorneys that are interested in the law and justice.  They have experience in the courts of Virginia.  They are accessible.

Just a few of the appeals by this law firm:

Civil Rights – Torts

Cromartie v Billings, 298 Va. 284 (2020) – (Oral Argument – Jonathan M. Arthur, Esq.)(Reversal and remand where trial court erroneously granted police officer’s motion to strike civil rights claims for excessive use of force under 42 USC § 1983 based upon qualified immunity and unlawful search under Va. Code § 19.2-59 based upon sovereign immunity)

Liverman v City of Petersburg, 844 F.3d 400 (2016) (Oral Arguments – Andrew T. Bodoh, Esq.) (1st Amendment violations by City of Petersburg Police Department)

Cutts v Peed, 17 Fed. Appx 132 (2001)(unpublished)(rejected sheriff’s interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where deputies claimed retaliation under the 1st Amendment for opposing racial harassment in the Fairfax Sheriff’s Office)

Smith v Commonwealth, 286 Va. 52 (2013) (Virginia breached plea agreement with unlawful taking without compensation by exercise of police powers to reclassify sex offence conviction – 1st time court acknowledged Virginia Constitution’s taking clause extended beyond real property)

Fobian v Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887 (1999)(Vacated and remanded – the trial court erred by finding it did not have jurisdiction to hear FRCP 60(b) motion to vacate judgment on the basis of fraud and newly discovered evidence)

Brown v ABF Freight Sys., Inc. 183 F.3d 319 (1999)(Collective bargaining agreement did not incorporate federal anti-discrimination laws into agreement and therefore employee not required to arbitrate ADA claims)

Goad v Va. Bd. of Med. 40 Va. App 621 (2003)(reversal of revocation of professional medical license where no evidence of standard of ethics that were violated and record devoid of evidence showing doctor performed any act likely to deceive, defraud or harm the public)

Corker v Jones 1992 U.S. App LEXIS 2328 (1992)(unpublished)(4th Circuit failed to reverse stating that police officers had probable cause to arrest a mildly mentally disabled known cross-dresser with a press pass outrageously affirming that he was unable to explain how he obtained a press pass, did not appear to be prepared to act as a reporter, had no identification to establish connection to a “news organization, was known as an eccentric person with a criminal record — since when would any of these rob him of his 1st Amendment right of being a member of the “press”??)

Domestic:

Winters v Winters, 73 Va. App 581 (2021) – Oral Arguments – 9/14/2021 (Primary issue in custody, visitation & support is best interest of children, all other issues subordinate)

Mulvey v Rhoads, pending (2022) – Oral Arguments – Thomas H. Roberts – 1/19/2022 (Constitutional Rights in Parent-Child Relationship Should Not Be Terminated without finding upon clear and convincing evidence of unfit parent and detriment to child of continuing relationship)

Tort – General

Padula-Wilson v Landry, 298 Va. 565 (2020)(Defense of Guardian ad Litem against suit by disgruntled parent)

O’Brien v Everfast, Inc., 254 Va. 326 (1997)(Reversed and Judgment for O’Brien, where shopkeeper created danger, claimant not required to prove notice)

General

Harmon v Ewing, 285 Va. 335 (2013) – (FOIA Appeal Issues)

Brubaker v City of Richmond, 943 V.2d 1363 (1991)(Reversed in part, vacated in part – where trial court improperly sanctioned young attorney where he was correct on most of the issues of law)

Martin v Univ. of Va. Med. Ctr., 2007 Va. App. (2007)(unpublished) (Worker’s Compensation Commission finding that claimant failed to adequately market her residual capacity was reversed)

Rector v Wykle, 2000 U.S. App LEXIS 23258 (2000)(vacated and remanded where trial court erroneously used 42 USCA § 1988 factors in determining sanctions under FRCP 11)

Criminal Defense

Artis v Commonwealth, 2014 Va. App LEXIS 323 (2014)(unpublished) (conviction for trespass reversed)

Roberts v Clarke, 1994 Va. LEXIS 300 (1994)(reversing and vacated trial court sanction)

 

Disclaimer

The materials are prepared for information purposes only.  The materials are not legal advice and you should not act upon the information without seeking the advice of an attorney.  Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship.

Thomas H. Roberts, Esq.
Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C.
105 S 1st Street
Richmond, Va 23219
804-783-2000 

Search Site

This website provides hundreds of articles and commentaries related to the law for informational purposes. It is not intended as "legal advice" to you.

Recent Blogs

Categories

Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, PC