Carlton A. Vaughan, III v Commonwealth of Virginia

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Baker, Benton and Bray Argued at Richmond, Virginia CARLTON A. VAUGHAN, III v. Record No. 1596-96-2 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY JANUARY 20, 1998 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY Richard H.C. Taylor, Judge L. Willis Robertson, Jr. (Cosby and Robertson, on brief), for appellant. Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Carlton A. Vaughan, III, (defendant) appeals his conviction for several burglaries and related grand larcenies, arguing that the prosecutions violated Code § 19.2-243, the "speedy trial" statute. We agree and reverse the convictions. Defendant is familiar with the salient procedural history, and we recite only those circumstances necessary to a disposition of this appeal. Defendant and codefendants, John Bradley Madison and Gerald E. Baker, Jr., were prosecuted before the trial court for several burglaries and attendant offenses. Each defendant was represented by separate counsel, but the respective prosecutions shared identical procedural courses, together with like motions, * Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. arguments, orders and other events pertaining to the speedy trial issue. Accordingly, each defendant appealed his convictions to this Court, asserting that Code § 19.2-243 barred the disputed prosecutions and convictions. In Baker v. Commonwealth, a panel of this Court concluded that the Commonwealth had "fail[ed] to provide [codefendant Baker] a speedy trial as required by Code § 19.2-243" and reversed the convictions. 25 Va. App. 19, 20-21, 486 S.E.2d 111, 112, aff'd en banc, 26 Va. App. 175, 493 S.E.2d ____ (1997). Finding that Baker controls the disposition of this appeal, we similarly reverse and dismiss the instant convictions. Reversed and dismissed. - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.