Virginia Henrico County Robbery Conviction Lawyers Attorney

Virginia Henrico County Robbery Conviction Lawyers Attorney

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

RONALD BEASLEY CHANEY, S/K/A RONALD B. CHANEY, III v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

April 1, 2008, Decided

Facts:

Appellant and his cousin, Wade Robertson, planned to rob Omari Barrett through the guise of selling Barrett an AK-47 in exchange for drugs and money. In furtherance of the plan, appellant and Robertson armed themselves with handguns, dressed in bulletproof vests, and convinced another individual, Gary Sanford, to join them in the commission of the robbery. During the robbery three people were shot. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant entered guilty pleas to six of the eleven felonies originally charged. During the plea colloquy, appellant maintained that he had an

opportunity

to speak with counsel about the charges, that he understood the charges, that by pleading guilty, he waived his right to a jury trial, his right against self-incrimination, his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and his right to appeal. He claimed that he made his pleas willingly and voluntarily and did so because he was guilty. Appellant further claimed that he was not forced to plead guilty by threat or intimidation. The trial court accepted the pleas, finding they were made willingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Later defendant moved to withdraw the pleas on the ground that he acted in self-defense. The trial court denied appellant’s motion and sentenced him on the convictions. Defendant now challenged this judgment.

Issue:

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas?

Discussion:

This court on considering the facts and circumstances of this case, held that appellant’s justifications for withdrawing his guilty pleas do not constitute evidence of “reasonable ground[s]”.Having received advice from family members and upon a review of self-defense law, appellant simply changed his mind as to his guilt based on a theory of self-defense. The record proves, however, that appellant’s actions do not constitute any viable self-defense claim because he provoked and planned the robbery with Robertson, armed himself with guns and body armor, acted in furtherance of the plan, struggled for control of his firearm with Barrett, shot Barrett, and also shot at other aggressors approaching the vehicle. Although the trial court used the phrase “manifest [injustice]” in rendering its decision, the trial court’s discussion and rationale

demonstrates

that it actually evaluated the facts and circumstances properly within the mandate of Justus. In assessing appellant’s self-defense claim, the trial court noted that appellant’s attorney attempted to create speculation as to which side shot first during the robbery incident. Accordingly, because the trial court’s rationale comports with the mandate of Justus, and because the evidence supports that rationale, this court finds the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

Conclusion:

This court hence affirmed the judgment and defendant’s convictions for malicious wounding, using a firearm in the commission of malicious wounding, conspiracy to commit robbery, and wearing body armor.

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

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia,

Maryland

, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina & Califor

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com