Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

258 Va. 1

516 S.E.2d 219

Commonwealth v. Baker

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided June 11, 1999

Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1999-06-11

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[f]or the reasons set forth in the opinion”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Nelson v. WARDEN OF KEEN MTN. CORRECTIONAL

Relies on 28 Va. App. 306 - Baker v. Commonwealth · Gogley v. Peyton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-06-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Porter v. Com. (2008), Johnson v. Commonwealth (2000)

76 state decisions

650199920002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM

¶1 In this appeal, the Court reviews a judgment of the Court of Appeals declaring the transfer of jurisdiction from a juvenile and domestic relations district court to a circuit court ineffectual and the subsequent convictions void. Baker v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 306, 504 S.E.2d 394 (1998).

¶2 Central to the decision below was the interpretation of Code § 16.1-263(A), which provides, in part, that after a juvenile petition is filed, the court shall direct summonses “to the parents” of the juvenile. Here, even though the juvenile’s mother received notice, the juvenile’s biological father was not notified, there was no attempt to give him notice, and the circuit court made no certification on the record that the identity of the father was not reasonably ascertainable.

¶3 Parenthetically, we note the statute has been amended effective July 1, 1999 to provide for notice to “at least one parent.” Acts 1999, ch. 952.

¶4 For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the court’s judgment.

¶5 Furthermore, we decline the Attorney General’s request that we apply this judgment prospectively only; retrospective application is mandated by Gogley v. Peyton, 208 Va. 679, 160 S.E.2d 746 (1968).

¶6 Affirmed.

/258/va/1 · .json · Public domain