Preview:

PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee,
JJ., and Stephenson, S.J.
JOHN FITZGERALD GASTON
PER CURIAM
v.    Record No.  022303
September  12,  2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Marc Jacobson, Judge
John Fitzgerald Gaston filed a motion in the Circuit Court
of the City of Norfolk, pursuant to Code  §  19.2-327.1, seeking
post-trial scientific analysis of certain evidence.    Following a
hearing, the circuit court denied Gaston's motion.    On February
5,  2003, we awarded Gaston this appeal and also directed the
parties to brief the issue "whether this Court has jurisdiction
to hear this appeal."    We conclude that this Court does not have
jurisdiction.
Subsection G of Code  §  19.2-327.1 expressly states, in
pertinent part, that "[a]n action under this section  .  .  . shall
not form the basis for relief in any habeas corpus proceeding or
any other appeal."    When a statute is clear and unambiguous, a
court may look only to the words used in the statute to
ascertain its meaning and intent.    Yamaha Motor Corp. v.
Quillian,  264 Va.  656,  665,  571 S.E.2d  122,  126  (2002); Harrison
& Bates, Inc. v. Featherstone Assoc.,  253 Va.  364,  368,  484
S.E.2d  883,  885  (1997).    The language used in Code  §  19.2-




327.1                                                       (G) is clear and unambiguous and means that a circuit
court's ruling under Code  §  19.2-327.1 is unappealable.
Consequently, we will dismiss Gaston's appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed.
2

Download 1022303.pdf

Virginia Law