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