I'm spitballing here. These arguments are embryonic, not polished and perfected. Before I made them in court or as part of a brief I'd put considerably more work into organization, historical analysis, and other refinements.
If anyone wants to put together a serious argument against advisement - based on Virginia constitution, law and precedent - email it to me. I will be happy to publish it. The only thing I require is that it explain why the single larceny doctrine would still exist under your explanation and why common law procedures - such as having a judge presided over "sentencing hearing" which occurs everywhere in Virginia post jury sentencing (even when the presentence report is not in question) despite 19.2-298 only allowing the judge to pronounce sentence - are still valid.
