Facts. On March 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued its first judicial emergency order related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which tolled certain deadlines. The same day, Clifton Jacks was convicted in GDC for driving while intoxicated. Jacks noted his appeal to circuit court outside the Code § 16.1‑132’s ten-day deadline, so the circuit court sua sponte dismissed the case. Jacks filed no objections but appealed. The Commonwealth did not initially dispute that this deadline had been tolled by judicial order but claimed that Jacks had not preserved this argument in the trial court, and therefore that he had waived it on appeal.
Issue. (1) Whether Code § 16.1‑132’s ten-day deadline is a “case-related deadline” that was tolled by the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 emergency orders. (2) Whether Code § 8.01‑384(A)’s exception to the contemporaneous rule applied.
Holding. (1) Code § 16.1‑132’s ten-day appeal window is a “case-related deadline.” (2) Jacks had no opportunity to make his tolling argument before the dismissal was entered, so he is not barred from making that argument on appeal under Code § 8.01‑384(A).
Notes. (1) Jacks’ prosecution for driving under the influence was a “case,” the statutory ten-day appeal window was a “deadline,” and it “related” to the case because it restricted how long Jacks had to note his appeal. (2) Code § 8.01‑384(A) creates an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule. It states that “if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection shall not thereafter prejudice him…on appeal.” Here, the circuit court dismissed Jacks’ appeal sua sponte, without a hearing, and outside the presence of him or his counsel, giving him no opportunity to object. The plain language of the statute states that a failure to object “shall not thereafter prejudice” a litigant on appeal, so Jacks was not required to file any post-judgment motions to preserve his argument for appeal.
A Virginia Appellate Law Blog 
How ridiculous that we need to go through this commotion in order to say “he had no opportunity to object, therefore we should give him one”.
Given Virginia appellate courts’ strict application of Rules 5A:18 and 5:25, it’s remarkable that he was given the opportunity to argue that point!