David Bomber


Governor Ralph Northam
Office of the Governor
Patrick Henry Building
1111 E. Broad St., 3rd Floor
Richmond, Va. 23219-1934

July 13th, 2019

Dear Governor Northam,
I am reaching out to your office in which I am seeking your endorsement in commuting a portion of my sentence that I am currently serving, as this relates to the following matter.

As we speak, I have forwarded an electronic copy of a petition along with a proposed bill to all the members of the Senate Courts of Justice that I have written. It is my hope that this bill will be considered by the 2020 Virginia General Assembly, which I am seeking to retroactively amend the aggravated malicious wounding statue, Virginia Code Section 18.2-51.2, respectively. Enclosed for your review is a copy of both said petition and proposed bill.

In regards to the aggravated malicious wounding statue, specifically, let me start out by saying that I am a huge proponent of not only fair punishment, but also that all U.S. citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. Both of which are supposed to be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia. However, as I will demonstrate, Virginia’s statue on aggravated malicious wounding does not abide by either.

According to Websters New World Dictionary, the definition of the word OR is defined as:

“A coordinating conjunction introducing an alternative., specif., a) introducing the second of two possibilities (beer or wine) b) introducing any of the possibilities in a series, but usually used before the last /apples (or) pears, or plums/ c) introducing a synonymous word or phrase /botany, or the science of plants/ d) Introducing the second of two possibilities when the first is introduced by either or whether /either go or stay, whether to go or stay/ e) (Old Poet.) substituted for either or whether as the first correlative /’or in the heart or in the head’/.”

With that very definition in mind, please consider Virginia Code Section 18.2-51.2(B), which states in relevant part, “…with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill the pregnant woman, or cause the involuntary termination of her pregnancy.” Here, there can only be one alternative out of several possibilities when you consider both the definition of the word OR and the language of the provision of the statue. Moreover, an assailant who offends this particular subsection can only theoretically receive a single indictment/conviction for their undifferentiated conduct, especially when you use the analogy of either an apple (the impregnated woman) or a pear (the unborn child) as a choice. In other words the Commonwealth would have to elect as to what was the assailant’s exact intent when he committed an overt act against an impregnated woman, considering that it ultimately resulted in the loss of her unborn child.

In this instance, who was given equal protection under the law, the impregnated woman or the unborn child? Or was it the criminal defendant who only had to face a single indictment?

However, in the matter before you the Commonwealth did not choose to elect which indictment was appropriate. Instead, the Commonwealth’s position was that it was my intent to “maim, disfigure, disable, AND kill” the victim with a single stroke of a knife, and that my conduct fell under Virginia Code Section 18.2-51.2(A). Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, I am the very first person in Virginia’s history that has been convicted of both aggravated malicious wounding and second-degree murder of the same victim, stemming from a single action.

On a personal note, while I maintain that actions were strictly out of regards for my safety and others, I nonetheless am horrified that it ultimately resulted in both Larry Michael Worrell II’s grave medical condition, and his death. Moreover, my remorse is above reproach when you consider that the Commonwealth gathered witnesses who testified concerning how distraught I was (and still am) over this tragedy. Simply put, that is something that will remain with me for the rest of my life no matter what sentence I must serve by any court.

On a different note, it begs the question. Why am I being punished cumatively when the victim in this matter was a male who certainly could not possibly become impregnated? Obviously this demonstrates the disparity between the two subsections of the aggravated malicious wounding statue. It also begs these questions. Who was given equal protection under the law? Was it the male victim, the hypothetical impregnated woman, or was it the very first person in Virginia’s history to be convicted of both aggravated malicious wounding and second-degree murder of the same victim?

As I mentioned I do believe strongly in both fair punishment and equal protection under the law. For these very reasons I pray that you will consider both my petition and proposed bill, as well as consider my request to commute a portion of my sentence. In that regard I am asking that the conviction for aggravated malicious wounding be forgiven, leaving me to serve the sentence imposed by the jury for second-degree murder and the various misdemeanor convictions.

Please be advised though that although I have yet to file a conditional pardon with the Secretary of the Commonwealth, I nonetheless have every intention to do so.

Thank you kindly for your time and consideration.

Contact me via snail mail:

David Bomber #1130793
Nottoway Correctional Center
P.O. Box 488
Burkeville, Va. 23922

Email me submitting my name or Virginia state ID number (1130793)

To make a donation to support my legal defense:

Categories: David Bomber

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s