Brief Encounter with Firearms Not Enough to Convict, Says Court. Government Shocked.

Written by: Sam Orlando

CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA - In what can only be described as a harsh day for government prosecutors trying to win cases with vibes and guesses, the Virginia Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of Jenmall Donte Simmons—who was sentenced to 12 months (eight suspended) for allegedly carrying a concealed weapon he wasn't actually caught carrying.

The crime? Driving a black Audi that may or may not have been stolen, and—this part is important—having guns hidden under the floor mat on the driver’s side.

But here’s the legal hiccup: prosecutors couldn’t prove how long Simmons was even in the car, whether he touched the guns, or if he was simply in close proximity to them. The arresting officer didn’t see him drive. He didn’t see him with a gun. He just saw Simmons get out of the car and walk into a house. Apparently, the Commonwealth decided that was enough.

Spoiler: It wasn’t.

The trial court originally agreed that mere proximity was sufficient to convict, because nothing screams criminal intent like sitting near something for an undetermined amount of time. But the Court of Appeals decided that, despite the Commonwealth’s best efforts, criminal convictions still require actual evidence. A wild precedent, to be sure.

Quoting case law like Pruitt v. Commonwealth (2007), the court said the Commonwealth failed to show Simmons had the weapon "about his person"—meaning accessible for immediate use. Once Simmons left the car and went inside the house, those guns were about as accessible as a gym membership in January.

The court, not unreasonably, said this amounted to speculation, which is a fancy legal word for “guessing.”

And guesswork, as it turns out, is not a substitute for due process.

In a tone dripping with polite exhaustion, the court basically told prosecutors: If you want a conviction, bring more than vibes and a floor mat.

The ruling now becomes part of the growing pile of decisions that remind the Commonwealth: being near a gun is not the same as carrying one, and judges aren’t required to fill in missing facts with their imagination.

🧾 One Legal Caveat

It’s worth noting the court’s ruling came via an unpublished memorandum opinion, which under Virginia law means it doesn’t carry the force of binding precedent. In legal speak, it’s not “controlling.” But that doesn’t make it meaningless.

Unpublished decisions can still be cited for persuasive value—especially by defense attorneys eager to point out when the Commonwealth is reaching for convictions with fingers crossed behind their back.

So while Simmons’ case won’t rewrite the law, it quietly reinforces a long-standing but occasionally forgotten principle: you can't lock people up without evidence. And when the government tries to stretch the definition of a crime past the breaking point, it’s the court’s job to hit the brakes.