The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Farnsworth v. Commonwealth
042158 Farnsworth v. Commonwealth 06/09/2005 In a prosecution under Code § 18.2-308.2 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the circuit court did not e…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
042158 Farnsworth v. Commonwealth 06/09/2005 In a prosecution under Code § 18.2-308.2 for possession of a firearm by a convicted …
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- June 9, 2005
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
042158 Farnsworth v. Commonwealth 06/09/2005 In a prosecution under Code § 18.2-308.2 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the circuit court did not err in determining that restoration of the defendant's civil rights by a foreign jurisdiction following release from incarceration did not operate to permit him to lawfully possess a firearm in Virginia. As explained by the Court of Appeals, the prohibitory language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, and the defendant did not pursue either of the statutory exceptions available under its terms. The judgment is affirmed.
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
Affirmed
The court's record, as written
042158 Farnsworth v. Commonwealth 06/09/2005 In a prosecution under Code § 18.2-308.2 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the circuit court did not err in determining that restoration of the defendant's civil rights by a foreign jurisdiction following release from incarceration did not operate to permit him to lawfully possess a firearm in Virginia. As explained by the Court of Appeals, the prohibitory language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, and the defendant did not pursue either of the statutory exceptions available under its terms. The judgment is affirmed.
Outcome words in this text: affirmed.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
