Commonwealth v. Holman

Syllabus

04/04/2024 On the Commonwealth's appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversing a defendant's conviction for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, the \approbate and reprobate\ doctrine bars the defendant's attempt to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on the charge of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. At trial, the defendant consistently staked out the position that he was not challenging the charge of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Counsel stated the defendant was changing his plea to a guilty plea to the offense of unlawful wounding, and the statements of his attorney were part of a deliberate and well-crafted trial strategy designed to forestall a conviction for the charge of aggravated malicious wounding. Having approbated to the charge of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, the defendant now seeks to reprobate by challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for that charge. The approbate and reprobate doctrine forecloses precisely this kind of conduct. Moreover, under settled law, the approbate and reprobate doctrine precludes resort to the ends of justice exception. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and final judgment is entered on this appeal in favor of the Commonwealth.