1. The Circuit Court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the robbery charge, and the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the robbery conviction, because the evidence did not establish that the taking was accomplished by force or intimidation before or concomitant with the taking.
2. The Circuit Court erred in affirming convictions and sentences for both robbery and larceny from the person arising from one and the same act, and the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the two convictions arising from the same act.
3. The Court of Appeals erred in refusing to apply the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 when considering whether appellant could be convicted of both robbery and larceny from the person arising from the same act.

1. The trial court erred in holding that it possessed jurisdiction to modify a criminal defendant’s sentence over four years after the trial court’s entry of the final sentencing order in the case, where the 21-day period proscribed by Rule 1:1 had elapsed and where there were no applicable exceptions to the Rule.
2. The trial court erred in holding that the traditionally equitable writ of error audita querela is an available remedy in criminal cases.
3.Even if the writ of error audita querela is applicable to criminal proceedings, the trial court erred in issuing a writ of error audita querela under the circumstances of this case because it provided the defendant with a secondary, non-statutory remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel.
4.Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court relied upon the alternative relief requested, the trial court erred in erred in modifying the defendant’s finalized sentence through a writ of error coram vobis.

The trial court erred in relying on Va. Code §§ 37.2-901 and 907 to uphold the requirement that Hood had to choose whether to cooperate with the government psychologist before the appointment of counsel, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Right to Counsel provision of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the Law of the Land provision in Article I § 8 of the Constitution of Virginia.

The Trial Court erred by finding sufficient evidence for the three counts of child cruelty and by denying the Appellant’s motion to strike.

The Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed Defendant's two convictions for violating Virginia Code Section 18.2-53.1 when his two convictions for violating Virginia Code Section 18.2-53 barred them due to Virginia Code Section 19.2-294 and "double jeopardy."

1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that an affidavit in support of an ex parte petition for a protective order is not “testimonial” within the meaning of Confrontation Clause cases, in violation of Anthony Crawford’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the principle of “forfeiture by wrongdoing” applies to permit extra-judicial statements in cases that arise in domestic relations contexts, even without specific proof in this case that the Defendant killed the victim to silence her or to keep her from testifying against him, in violation of Anthony Crawford’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
3. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Court of Appeals is not bound by the trial prosecutor’s concession that the affidavit was “testimonial.”
4. The Court of Appeals erred in applying the “right result/wrong reason” doctrine to uphold the conviction.
5. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to address Appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions of abduction with intent to defile and rape.

The Court of Appeals erred in finding that the seizure of Mr. Banks’ jacket was lawful under the Fourth Amendment as authorized by Banks’ consent.

1. The trial court erred in finding that sufficient evidence was presented by the Commonwealth to support Mr. Hall’s conviction under an indictment charging him with felony escape by use of force or violence.
2. The Court of Appeals of Virginia erred by concluding that there was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in this matter.

The trial court committed reversible error by allowing Willie Javar Williams' hearsay allegations made to Sergeant Shaw concerning defendant into evidence.