# Porter v. Com.

> Supreme Court of Virginia · June 6, 2008 · 276 Va. 203

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523234

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas Alexander PORTER v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Virginia
- **Decided:** June 6, 2008
- **Citations:** 276 Va. 203; 661 S.E.2d 415; 2008 Va. LEXIS 78
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Keenan
- **Judges:** G. Steven Agee
- **Cited by:** 283 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523234

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Virginia APA “exempts actions of agencies relating to ‘[i]nmates of prisons or other such facilities or parolees therefrom,’ ” that “the Virginia Department of Corrections is an agency whose sole purpose is related to inmates of prisons,” and that the Departme…
- explaining that a trial court " 'by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.... The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.’ ” (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 8…
- explaining that a trial court “‘by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. . . . The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.’” (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. …
- recognizing that in-court practices that present an unacceptable risk of “impermissible factors coming into play” are inherently prejudicial and “pose an unacceptable threat to a defendant’s right to a fair trial”
- holding an action of a court without subject matter jurisdiction to be void and the action of a court without territorial jurisdiction or jurisdiction over persons, things, or occurrences located in a defined geographic area to be voidable

## Opinion text

Justice KEENAN, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I join in Justice Koontz's analysis and conclusion that this Court's holding permits a defendant to be executed under void judgments. In my view, in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, Porter effectively was not tried for these offenses and, thus, ultimately will be executed based solely on the indictments that were returned against him. Because the conclusion I reach requires reversal of the void judgments, I would not address any other issue in the case and would remand the case for a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523234. Public record. Not legal advice.