CT Family Attorney

David G. Volman Attorney At Law LLC 203-567-4773 www.yellowbook.com

Melendez v. Commonwealth, 2010
Va. (Va. Ct. App. May 4, 2010)

On appeal, he asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the misdemeanor offense. He also contends the trial court erred in failing to consider the sentencing guidelines prior to imposing sentence.

Holding:

Code § 18.2-461 provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person (i) to knowingly give a false report as to the commission of a crime to any law-enforcement official with intent to mislead. Appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he violated the statute because he did not give a false report as to the commission of a crime. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, establishes that appellant did, in fact, give the officer false information–he lied about Melendez’s status as his wife and lied about numerous bits of information that made it harder for Officer Knick to locate her. He lied about where she worked, lied about having family in the area, and then lied concerning Melendez’s whereabouts, saying he did not know where she was and then saying she had returned to El Salvador. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support this element of the offense.

Appellant also contends the evidence failed to prove the false report was “as to the commission of a crime.” Noting he was truthful about the forged nature of the document provided to DMV and his assistance in uttering the application, he contends his false statements concerning Melendez’s place of employment and their relationship fall outside the proscription of Code § 18.2-461. With respect to his felony convictions, appellant does not assert that his sentences exceeded the maximum limits set by statute. When a statute prescribes a maximum imprisonment penalty and the sentence does not exceed the maximum, the sentence will not be overturned as being an abuse of discretion. Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256, 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001)

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Originally published here.