Richard G. Coleman v. Susan Claire Hogan

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Frank, Alston and Senior Judge Coleman
RICHARD G. COLEMAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 2927-08-3 	PER CURIAM
JUNE 16, 2009
SUSAN CLAIRE HOGAN
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY
Michael S. Irvine, Judge
(Richard G. Coleman, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
Richard G. Coleman appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing his proceeding. Coleman
argues that the circuit court erred by (1) refusing to process his notice of appeal of a support matter
from the juvenile and domestic relations district court (JDR court) and refusing to allow him to
testify and present evidence, which violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection
under the laws; (2) misapplying the rule that an appeal from the JDR court should be noted within
ten days, as opposed to thirty days pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA);
and (3) not considering the best interests of the child in refusing to process Coleman’s notice of
appeal. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we summarily affirm the decision of the
circuit court. Rule 5A:27.
On September 11, 2008, the JDR court dismissed Coleman’s motion to amend child support
and notified Coleman of his right to appeal the ruling within ten days of the order. Coleman
participated in the hearing by telephone.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
On October 6, 2008, the JDR court received a notice of appeal from Coleman1 and
forwarded the notice to the circuit court. The circuit court returned the notice to Coleman because
the deadline for appealing the JDR court order had expired and the circuit court did not have the
case before it. Coleman and the clerk of the circuit court exchanged numerous letters regarding
Coleman’s attempt to appeal the JDR court’s ruling.
On November 25, 2008, the circuit court entered an order stating that Coleman’s attempt to
initiate a proceeding was “summarily dismissed” because the “referenced case does not exist in this
Court and no such case has been initiated in this Court and no such ‘J&D Appeal’ has been
forwarded to this Court” by the JDR court.
Coleman argues that he timely noted his appeal of the JDR court order under UIFSA.
However, Coleman did not preserve this argument for appeal because he did not raise the issue
below. See Rule 5A:18. Rule 5A:18 states that “No ruling of the trial court . . . will be
considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds
therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals
to attain the ends of justice.” We “will not consider an argument on appeal which was not
presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484,
488 (1998). “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to allow the trial court to correct in the trial court
any error that is called to its attention.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737
(1991) (en banc). There was no miscarriage of justice in this case, and the ends of justice
exception does not apply.
1 In appealing the JDR court’s decision, Coleman incorrectly used the form for appeals
from the circuit court to the Court of Appeals. In one of his letters to the circuit court clerk’s
office, Coleman also incorrectly cites to Rule 5A:6 when he argues that he had thirty days to note
his appeal from the JDR court.

- 3 -
Coleman also argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to process his notice of appeal.
Coleman contends that his Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Equal Protection Clause were
violated because the circuit court did not process his appeal nor did it allow him to testify or present
evidence. Furthermore, Coleman argues that the circuit court did not consider the best interests of
the child when it refused to process the appeal. However, Coleman failed to timely note his appeal
in the JDR court and, consequently, was not entitled to any consideration of his motion to amend.
Coleman’s failure to perfect his appeal was fatal, and the circuit court properly dismissed the matter.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the circuit court’s decision. Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.