Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amin v. County of Henrico

Court of Appeals of Virginia

April 1, 2014

TARIQ RASHAD AMIN
v.
COUNTY OF HENRICO

UPON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY. Gary A. Hicks, Judge.

J. Burkhardt Beale (Boone Beale, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.

David R. Giroux, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, for appellee.

Present: Frank, Humphreys and Huff, Judges.

OPINION

Page 483

[63 Va.App. 205] ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS, JUDGE.

Tariq Rashad Amin (" Amin" ) was convicted in the Henrico County Circuit Court (" trial court" ) of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of " Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia Code Section 18.2-308." Amin appealed his conviction to this Court. The only assignment of error included in Amin's petition for appeal was that the trial court erred [63 Va.App. 206] in denying his motion to suppress. This Court granted Amin's petition for appeal. Amin then filed an opening brief wherein he argued two assignments of error: (1) that the conviction is void as a matter of law as there exists no Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia Code § 18.2-308, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We declined to address Amin's assignment of error alleging his conviction was void because he did not include it in his petition for appeal, pursuant to Rule 5A:12, and we affirmed the trial court's ruling denying Amin's motion to suppress. Amin appealed our ruling to the Virginia Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed our holding that Rule 5A:12 barred us from considering Amin's argument that his conviction order was void ab initio. Amin v. Cnty. of Henrico, 286 Va. 231, 237, 749 S.E.2d 169, 171 (2013). This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court to consider whether Amin's conviction order was void ab initio. Id. We hereby withdraw our previous opinion, Amin v. Cnty. of Henrico, 61 Va.App. 67, 733 S.E.2d 661 (2012), and address anew the merits of Amin's appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 1, 2010, Henrico County police officers approached Amin while he was sitting in his car and asked him if he had any weapons on his person. Amin stated that he did not. After the police ran a background check on Amin and informed him that his concealed weapons permit had expired, the officer again asked Amin if he had any weapons. This time Amin stated that he did have a weapon that was on his hip and underneath his jacket.

Officer S.C. Flores (" Flores" ) issued a Virginia Uniform Summons to Amin. Officer Flores marked two boxes indicating that Amin was charged with violating both " State" and " County" laws. The next few lines of the form were filled in to read: " LAW SECTION (22-2) 18.2-308. DESCRIBE CHARGE: Concealed Weapon w/ No CWP (CWP Revoked)." [1] [63 Va.App. 207] After hearing a motion to suppress, which the trial court denied, and holding a bench trial, the trial court issued a final order finding Amin guilty. The order specifically stated that Amin was charged with a misdemeanor, " carrying a concealed weapon (Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia Code Section 18.2-308), as charged in the summons," and the trial court found Amin " guilty of carrying a concealed weapon (Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia Code Section 18.2-308), as charged in the summons."

II. ANALYSIS

Amin argues that " the conviction is void as a matter of law as there exists no Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia Code Section 18.2-308." Because this assignment of error raises a pure question of law, we review the judgment of the trial court de novo . Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390, 397, 649 S.E.2d 672, 675 (2007).

Page 484

Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 (" Ordinance 22-2" ) is a part of Chapter 22 of the Henrico County Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 22-2, by reference, criminalizes as a violation of county law all conduct that would be criminal under certain ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.