When a Virginia criminal case is appealed from district court to circuit court, does the electronic summons fee apply at both court levels?

Subject

Whether the electronic summons fee authorized by Va. Code § 17.1-279.1 should be assessed at both the district court and circuit court levels when a qualifying criminal or traffic case is appealed.

Plain-English summary

Virginia law allows counties, cities, and towns to enact local ordinances imposing an additional fee, up to $5 per case, on certain criminal and traffic cases, to fund the implementation and maintenance of an electronic summons system used by local law enforcement (Va. Code § 17.1-279.1). The fee is collected by the court clerk and remitted to the local treasury for the law enforcement agency.

Chesterfield Circuit Court Clerk Wendy Hughes questioned guidance she had received from the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES) of the Supreme Court of Virginia. OES had advised that in localities that have implemented the fee, the fee should be assessed at both the district court level and the circuit court level when a case is appealed. Clerk Hughes thought the statute might only authorize one assessment, based on two phrases in the statute: "in the district or circuit courts" (suggesting one or the other) and "where such cases are brought" (suggesting only the initial filing).

AG Miyares agreed with OES. The statute's "district or circuit courts" language directs that the fee operate in both court systems of the locality where it has been implemented. The "where such cases are brought" phrase reaches both initial filings and appeals, since both are circumstances where a case is "brought" before the court. Read holistically, the statute provides for a fee in each applicable proceeding, and an appeal is a separate proceeding from the initial filing.

The opinion also nods to the deference owed to OES guidance. OES is responsible for administering the state court system and providing guidance to clerks, and the opinion notes its view is reflected in the Circuit Court Clerk's Manual, which provides the standard operational instruction.

The practical result: a defendant who is charged with a misdemeanor in district court, has the fee assessed, appeals to circuit court for trial de novo, and is again convicted or otherwise has the fee qualifying conditions met, will pay the fee at both levels. The total fee burden is up to $10 in localities at the $5 maximum.

What this means for you

If you are a Virginia circuit court clerk

The opinion holds that, in localities that have implemented the fee, the electronic summons fee should be imposed on a qualifying appealed case at the circuit court level even if it was already assessed in district court, because the opinion treats the circuit court proceeding as a separate proceeding in which the case is "brought" before the court.

If you are a Virginia district court clerk

The opinion does not change district court practice; it addresses the circuit court assessment on appeal. It holds the fee applies at both court levels for a qualifying appealed case, not that it shifts from one level to the other.

If you are a Virginia criminal defense attorney

The opinion holds that an appeal from district court to circuit court can result in the electronic summons fee being assessed at both levels in localities that have implemented it. It notes the fee is capped at $5 per case and that the local ordinance "may provide for different sums in circuit courts and district courts."

If you are a Virginia traffic court litigant

The opinion holds that, where a locality has implemented the fee, appealing a district court conviction to circuit court can trigger a second assessment of the fee, because the opinion treats the appeal as a separate proceeding for fee purposes.

If you are a county, city, or town finance officer

The opinion holds that the fee operates in both the district and circuit courts of a locality that has implemented it, and that an appealed case is subject to the fee at both levels. It reads § 17.1-279.1's "district or circuit courts" language as a directive that the fee applies in both court systems, not a limit allowing only one assessment.

Common questions

Q: How much is the electronic summons fee?
A: Up to $5 per qualifying case, set by local ordinance. Localities can set different amounts in district and circuit courts.

Q: What kinds of cases qualify for the fee?
A: Criminal cases or traffic cases where the defendant is charged with a violation of a state statute or local ordinance, and the charging law enforcement agency is a local agency. The fee does not apply to federal cases or to cases brought by non-local law enforcement.

Q: What is the fee used for?
A: Software, hardware, and associated equipment costs for implementing and maintaining an electronic summons system used by the local law enforcement agency. The fee is remitted to the local treasury and disbursed by the local governing body to the law enforcement agency.

Q: Has every Virginia locality implemented the fee?
A: No. The fee is permissive, not mandatory. Each county, city, or town decides whether to impose it through local ordinance. Check your local ordinance to determine whether the fee applies in your jurisdiction.

Q: Does the fee apply at retrial after appeal?
A: An appeal to circuit court from a district court is typically a trial de novo (a new trial). The AG's analysis treats the circuit court proceeding as a separate proceeding for fee purposes, so the fee applies again. If a circuit court conviction is reversed on appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court and remanded, additional fee assessments would depend on the further proceedings on remand.

Q: What if a town has implemented the fee and the case is in a county circuit court?
A: The statute says a town's fee "shall replace any county fee that would otherwise apply." So if the town and county both have fees, the town's fee controls when the violation occurred within the town.

Q: Is the fee considered a fine or a court cost?
A: A court cost. Section 17.1-275.5 lists the fee as part of the cost framework, separate from any fine imposed for the underlying offense. Costs are typically paid even when the defendant is unable to pay the underlying fine; payment plans and hardship reductions are available.

Background and statutory framework

The electronic summons fee is part of Virginia's broader effort to modernize court and law enforcement information systems. Many localities have transitioned from paper summonses to electronic summonses generated by patrol-vehicle laptops or mobile devices. The systems require ongoing investment in software, hardware, and connectivity, and § 17.1-279.1 lets localities recoup some of that cost through a small case-based fee.

The OES guidance the AG followed reflects an institutional reading developed through experience with court fee administration. OES administers Virginia's unified court system and publishes the Circuit Court Clerks' Manual, which provides operational guidance to clerks across the state. The Manual's section on electronic summons fees describes the dual-assessment approach.

The AG's reading is consistent with the broader principle that court fees apply per proceeding rather than per case. Filing fees, for example, are assessed at each level of court the case proceeds through. The electronic summons fee follows the same pattern.

The fee is small in absolute terms but multiplied across thousands of cases per year produces meaningful revenue for local law enforcement IT budgets. The dual-assessment for appealed cases is a small additional revenue stream that helps offset the costs of operating the electronic summons system.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-279.1 (electronic summons fee)
• Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-275.5 (court costs add-on framework)

Cases:

• Jones v. Conwell, 227 Va. 176 (1984) (Virginia Supreme Court; statutory construction)
• Commonwealth v. Jones, 194 Va. 727 (1953) (Virginia Supreme Court; effect to component parts of statute)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2022/22-009-Hughes-issued.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Office of the Attorney General

Jason S. Miyares
Attorney General
202 North Ninth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
Fax 804-786-1991
March 24, 2022
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1

The Honorable Wendy S. Hughes
Clerk, Circuit Court of Chesterfield County
Post Office Box 125
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832-0125

Dear Ms. Hughes:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You question certain guidance that you received from the Supreme Court of Virginia, Office of the Executive Secretary ("OES") regarding the correct assessment of the electronic summons fee authorized under Virginia Code § 17.1-279.1. Specifically, you ask whether, in localities where the fee has been implemented, an appealed case should be subject to the fee at both the district court level and the circuit court level. I assume, for purposes of this opinion, that you refer to an appealed case that otherwise meets the qualifications for assessment of the fee in each court under § 17.1-279.1 and § 17.1-275.5 (herein referred to as a "qualifying appealed case").

Response

It is my opinion that, in localities where the electronic summons fee authorized under § 17.1-279.1 has been implemented, the fee should be imposed on a qualifying appealed case at both the district court level and the circuit court level.

Applicable Law / Background

The Code of Virginia allows localities to impose, by ordinance, a fee to fund the implementation and maintenance of an electronic summons system. The fee is assessed on certain criminal and traffic cases in the district and circuit courts of the locality implementing the fee. Section 17.1-279.1 sets forth standards for the implementation and assessment of the fee, as follows:

Any county, city, or town, through its governing body, may assess an additional sum not in excess of $5 as part of the costs in each criminal or traffic case in the district or circuit courts located where such cases are brought in which the defendant is charged with a violation of any statute or ordinance, which violation in the case of towns arose within the town, and where the defendant is charged with a violation of any such statute or ordinance by a local law-enforcement agency. The imposition of such assessment shall be by ordinance of the governing body, which may provide for different sums in circuit courts and district courts. The assessment shall be collected by the clerk of the court in which the action is filed, remitted to the treasurer of the appropriate county, city, or town, and held by such treasurer subject to disbursements by the governing body to a local law-enforcement agency solely to fund software, hardware, and associated equipment costs for the implementation and maintenance of an electronic summons system. The imposition of a town assessment shall replace any county fee that would otherwise apply.

You indicate that you have received guidance from OES that, in localities that have implemented the fee, it should be assessed on a qualifying appealed case at both the district court level and the circuit court level. This guidance is consistent with information contained in OES's Circuit Court Clerk's Manual. Generally, when an entity has some responsibility for enforcement or oversight of a particular area, its view is given great weight. That reasoning could be used with regards to the view of OES, which is responsible for administering the state court system and providing guidance to court clerks on the proper application of court fees.

You relate that you question this guidance because the use of the word "or" in the statute relating to the fee being applied to cases "in the district or circuit courts" seems to indicate that the fee cannot be applied twice when a case is appealed. Additionally, you relate that the statute's use of the phrase "where such cases are brought" implies that the fee only applies to appealed cases at the level of initial filing, i.e., at the district court level, rather than at both the district court level and the circuit court level.

Discussion

A "fundamental rule of statutory construction is that [a] part or section of a statute must be construed in conjunction with every other part." "Moreover, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that [a] statute should be construed so as to give effect to its component parts. Its meaning should not be derived from single words isolated from the true purpose of the Act." Read holistically and in context, the phrase in § 17.1-279.1 directing that the fee shall apply to certain criminal or traffic cases "in the district or circuit courts" of a locality means that where a locality has implemented the fee, the fee must be imposed by (i.e., put in practice by) both court systems of that locality. The phrase does not, in my opinion, have the more restricted meaning that the fee may only be assessed in one of the two court systems when a case is appealed. To the contrary, by specifying that the fee shall be imposed upon "each [applicable] criminal or traffic case" in a district or circuit court, the statute indicates that an appealed case is subject to imposition of the fee at both court levels.

Moreover, the statute's directive that the fee be assessed in district or circuit courts "where such cases are brought" does not limit the application of the fee to the court in which the action was initially filed. The term "brought" encompasses actions that are brought on appeal as well as actions that are brought through an initial filing: in both instances, a matter is brought before the court for decision.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that in localities where the electronic summons fee authorized under § 17.1-279.1 has been implemented, the fee should be imposed on a qualifying appealed case at both the district court level and the circuit court level.

With kindest regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

Jason S. Miyares
Attorney General