Moison v. Commonwealth (ORDER)
Syllabus
10/19/2023 Considering defendant's appeal from his convictions on multiple counts of aggravated sexual battery by a parent under Code § 18.2-67.3 and taking indecent liberties with a child under Code § 18.2-370.1, in which he argued that the circuit court erred in determining that the proffered testimony of a witness indicating that the defendant remained outside of the witness' home with her for several hours instead of accompanying his two minor daughters inside to sleep constituted inadmissible alibi testimony not timely disclosed pursuant to Rule 3A:11(d)(2), the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the merits of defendant's argument where the defendant's assignment of error indicated that the proffered testimony was not evidence of an alibi because it was instead offered to impeach by contradiction the testimony of his daughters, who were the victims. However, defendant never argued at trial that the proffered testimony was offered for impeachment purposes rather, he only argued that it was not alibi evidence. As a result, defendant's argument was waived. That portion of the Court of Appeals' judgment is reversed, but judgment upholding the conviction is affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that § 23-110 “divests federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by prisoners who could have raised viable claims pursuant to section 23-110(a)”
- concluding that this Court could review a Afederal habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel after [the petitioner has] moved to recall the mandate in the D.C. Court of Appeals@ because such a claim is not available via a ' 23-110 motion
- observing that “Blair-Bey . . . confirms that section 23-110(g) divests federal courts of 4 jurisdiction [] over habeas petitions by prisoners who . . . have an effective section 23-110 remedy available to them.”
- explaining that because “the [District of Columbia] Superior Court lacks authority to entertain a [§] 23-110 motion challenging the effectiveness of appellate counsel . . . § 23-110 does not bar [the petitioner’s] habeas petition”
- identifying “Ground two” as containing a cognizable claim on federal habeas review
- “[O]n questions of District of Columbia law this court defers to the D.C. Court of Appeals.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.