Commonwealth v. Baker
Cases that cite this one
50 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Moore v. Commonwealth (Va. 2000)
- Nelson v. WARDEN OF KEEN MTN. CORRECTIONAL (Va. 2001)
- Nelson v. Warden of the Keen Mountain Correctional Center (Va. 2001)
- Asby v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2001)
- Shackleford v. Commonwealth (Va. 2001)
- Moore v. Commonwealth (Va. 2000)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant (Fairfax County Circuit Court 1999)
- Commonwealth v. Carter (Norfolk County Circuit Court 2000)
- Roach v. Director, Department of Corrections (Va. 1999)
- Thomas v. Garraghty (Va. 1999)
- Smith v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2010)
- Porter v. Com. (Va. 2008)
- Quincy Damon Phillips v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2001)
- Payne v. Wright (Va. Cir. Ct. 2001)
- Southerly v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2000)
- Commonwealth v. Cano (Fairfax County Circuit Court 2000)
- Green v. Commonwealth (Va. 2002)
- Jerry Deon Smith v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2002)
- Carlos Demetrius Minor s/k/a v. Commonwealth of VA (Va. Ct. App. 2002)
- Andrews v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2002)
- Pope v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2002)
- Commonwealth v. Southerly (Va. 2001)
- Howerton v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2001)
- Duong v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2001)
- Charles Whitney, s/k/a Charles Albert Whitney v. CW (Va. Ct. App. 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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).
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.
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.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the court’s judgment.
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).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.