Jett v. Commonwealth, 540 S.E.2d 511 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Jett v. Commonwealth, 540 S.E.2d 511 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events (53 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Steven Omar Orellana v. Commonwealth of Virginia (vactapp, 2025-04-22)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Steven Omar Orellana v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Thomas v. Commonwealth, 82 Va. App. 80 , 124 (2024) (en banc); Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 (2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Octavian Javon Holcomb v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
We do not find an abuse of discretion when a sentencing judge follows the sentencing guidelines, which are by their very nature “intended to assist the court in fixing an appropriate sentence.” Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 (2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) David Lee Blair, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564-65 (2016); Fazili v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 239 , 248 (2019); Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 (2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ross Love Howard Hash v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Code § 19.2-298.01(F) provides that a trial court’s failure to follow any or all of the provisions of the sentencing guidelines “shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other post-conviction relief.” See also Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256-57 (2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chancelier Fazili v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“Given this deferential standard of review, we will not interfere with the sentence so long as it ‘was within the range set by the legislature’ for the particular crime of which the defendant was convicted.” Id. (quoting Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 (2001)); see also Valentine, 18 Va. App. at 339 (holding that if the sentence does not exceed the maximum set by the legislature, “the sentence will not be overturned as being an abuse of discretion” (quoting Abdo v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 473, 479 (1977))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dion Micah Blackwell v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 516 , 808 S.E.2d 408, 415 (2017). -3- Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 35, 46 , 707 S.E.2d 17, 23 (2011) (citations omitted) (quoting Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Randy D. Ross v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 175, 181 , 755 S.E.2d 468, 471 (2014) (quoting Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) America Transportation v. Claude Mailloux
Va. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Scott v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 35, 46 , 707 S.E.2d 17, 23 (2011) (holding that a trial court’s sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be overturned “so long as it ‘was within the range set by the legislature’” (quoting Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001))). 1 Following oral argument, employer filed a “Motion to Supplement Record” attaching a document purporting to show that employer had workers’ compensation insurance in Maryland at some point before the accident.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosangela Spradling v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
However, “[g]iven this deferential standard of review, we will not interfere with the sentence so long as it ‘“was within -4- the range set by the legislature”’ for the particular crime of which the defendant was convicted.” Scott v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 35, 46-47 , 707 S.E.2d 17, 23 (2011) (quoting Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lorenzo Atha Holley v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Additionally, under Code § 19.2-298.01(F), “[t]he failure to follow any or all of the provisions of [the sentencing guidelines] or the failure to follow any or all of the provisions of [the sentencing guidelines] in the prescribed manner shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other post-conviction relief.” Therefore, in Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 255-56 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 512 (2001), this Court rejected the appellant’s argument that “the trial court misapplied the sentencing guidelines when it included in its calculation the use of a firearm, even though the …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles Wesley Olmstead v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001) (quoting Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 158, 160-61 , 390 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raheem Chabezz Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001) (quoting Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 158, 160-61 , 390 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Lorenzo Nicholson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
He thereby “forfeited” the “conditional 4 See also Williams v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 580, 584 , 621 S.E.2d 98, 100 (2005); Perry v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 283, 289 , 156 S.E.2d 566, 571 (1967); Scott v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 35, 46-47 , 707 S.E.2d 17, 23 (2011); Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001); Runyon v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 573, 577 , 513 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1999); Valentine v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 334, 339 , 443 S.E.2d 445, 448 (1994); Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 158, 160-61 , 390 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990). -8- freedom” inherent …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001) (quoting Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 158, 160-61 , 390 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990)); see also Valentine, 18 Va.App. at 339 , 443 S.E.2d at 448 (holding that if the sentence does not exceed the maximum set by the legislature, “the sentence will not be overturned as being an abuse of discre *47 tion” (quoting Abdo v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 473, 479 , 237 S.E.2d 900, 903 (1977))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nelson Rafael Melendez v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001) (citing Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 158, 160-61 , 390 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jermaine Lamont Tunstall v. Commonwealth of Virginia (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Va. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 461, 465 , 592 S.E.2d 752, 754 (2004) (citing Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001); Hunt v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 395, 404-05 , 488 S.E.2d 672, 677 (1997); Bell v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 146, 149 , 442 S.E.2d 427, 429 (1994); Belcher v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 44, 45 , 435 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1993)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Calvin Earnest Myers v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Code § 19.2-298.01; Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 512-13 (2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Boone
Portsmouth Cir. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
In the cases decided after the adoption of the guidelines, it is clear that the guidelines create “no substantive or procedural right that [a defendant] was entitled ... to enjoy.” Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 257 (2001), “[T]hese discretionary guidelines are not binding on the trial judge, but, rather, are mere tools to be used by the judge in fixing an appropriate sentence within the limitations established by the statute governing punishment for the particular crime.” Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 461, 465 (2004).
examined Cited as authority (rule) William Michael Burpo, s/k/a William Michael Burpo, Jr. v. Commonwealth (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001) (citing Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 158, 160-61 , 390 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Luttrell v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001); Hunt v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 395, 404-05, 488 S.E.2d 672, 677 (1997); Bell v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 146, 149 , 442 S.E.2d 427, 429 (1994); Belcher v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 44, 45 , 435 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christopher Drew Brooks v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Appellate review is limited to whether the sentence is within the permissible range, Smith v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 620, 626 , 496 S.E.2d 117, 120 (1998), and “excluding decisions relating to the application of the guidelines from appellate review” does not deny due process, Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 257 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001).
examined Cited "see" Wilson v. Commonwealth (4×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001) (noting that the sentencing guidelines "are merely a tool intended to assist the court in fixing an appropriate sentence").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alvin Parkins, s/k/a Alvin Parkins, III v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald Leon JETT
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
3073994.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Jan 30, 2001.
540 S.E.2d 511
Jerry O. Taitón, Jr., Front Royal, for appellant., H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Willis, Bray, Clements.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
[*254] WILLIS, Judge.

Donald Leon Jett was convicted of one count of statutory burglary, in violation of Code § 18.2-91, and one count of robbery, in violation of Code § 18.2-58. On appeal, he contends (1) that the trial court erred by misapplying the Virginia Sentencing Guidelines, and (2) that Code § 19.2-298.01(F), denying appellate review, denied him due process. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. BACKGROUND

Jett was indicted for common law burglary, two counts of robbery and one count of using a firearm in the commission of a robbery. He entered into a plea agreement, which provided, in part:

1. The Defendant agrees to plead guilty to the felony charge of breaking and entering the dwelling house of [the victim] with the intent to commit robbery (but not while armed with a deadly weapon) in violation of 18.2-91, and guilty to one felony charge of robbing [the victim] in violation of 18.2-58. The Defendant further agrees to testify truthfully [against his codefendant].
2. The Commonwealth agrees to stand mute at sentencing. It further agrees to dismiss with prejudice Count Four; i.e. the felony charge under 18.2-53.1 of using a firearm while committing robbery, and Count Three; i.e. the felony charge under 18.2-58 of robbing [the victim]. The Commonwealth further agrees to amend the felony charge of breaking and entering while armed with a deadly weapon in Count One to felonious breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit robbery, but not while armed with a deadly weapon, under Va.Code § 18.2-91.

The agreement provided no specific punishment for the statutory burglary and robbery charges. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Jett pleaded guilty and was convicted of those charges. The trial court ordered a presentence report.

At the sentencing hearing, the probation officer presented a discretionary sentencing guideline calculation, see Code § 19.2-298.01, prepared on the basis that no firearm was used[*255] in the commission of the crimes. This calculation suggested a sentencing range of six years, five months to nine years, nine months, with a range midpoint of eight years, three months. The trial court rejected this calculation, noting that although, pursuant to the plea agreement, the charges against Jett had been reduced by eliminating the allegation that he used a firearm, nonetheless, the reduced crimes were committed under circumstances involving the presence and use of a firearm. The trial court recalculated the sentence suggested by the guidelines, producing a suggested sentencing range from ten years, seven months to sixteen years, seven months. Stating its review of the circumstances surrounding the crimes and of Jett’s social and criminal history, the trial court imposed on the statutory burglary conviction a sentence of fifteen years confinement in the state penitentiary, execution of which it suspended on stated terms, and on the robbery conviction, a sentence of nine years confinement in the state penitentiary.

Jett argued to the trial court that the dismissal of the firearm charge and the amendment of the statutory burglary and robbery charges were an adjudication that he was not guilty of using a firearm and that any consideration of firearm use in calculating his sentences exposed him to double jeopardy. The trial court disagreed, stating:

The question is under the Sentencing Guidelines, using robbery as the appropriate worksheet, the question is: Was there a gun used or not? And, there was a gun used. [Jett] didn’t wield it, but his co-defendant did. And, the instructions clearly say that all co-defendants are scored as if the gun was used. That is not a double jeopardy argument. I am not convicting him twice for the same offense. It is just simply: How do you compute the Guidelines, the voluntary Sentencing Guidelines?

The trial court offered to permit Jett to withdraw from the plea agreement. Jett declined the offer.

II. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

Jett argues that the trial court misapplied the sentencing guidelines when it included in its calculation the use of a[*256] firearm, even though the firearm related charges against him had been dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. We disagree.

The sentencing guidelines are not binding on the trial court. See Belcher v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 44, 45, 435 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1993). They are merely a tool intended to assist the court in fixing an appropriate sentence. See id. “If the sentence was within the range set by the legislature [for the crime of which the defendant was convicted], an appellate court will not interfere with the judgment.” Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 158, 160-61, 390 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990).

Jett received the benefit of his plea agreement. Elimination of the allegations that he committed his crimes while armed with a deadly weapon reduced his statutory burglary charge from an accusation carrying a potential sentence of confinement in the penitentiary for life to one carrying a maximum potential sentence of twenty years. The firearm charge and one robbery charge were dismissed. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limits provided for the crimes of which he was convicted.

III. DUE PROCESS

Code § 19.2-298.01(F) states:

The failure to follow any or all of the provisions of [the sentencing guidelines] or the failure to follow any or all of the provisions of this section in the prescribed manner shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other post-conviction relief.

Jett did not raise this question before the trial court. Ordinarily, our review of a trial court’s rulings is limited to consideration of questions submitted to the trial court. See Rule 5A:18. However, Jett argues that a legislatively imposed limitation on the scope of appellate review is not a matter properly submitted to a trial court, and, thus, Rule 5A:18 should not apply.

[*257] Accepting without deciding that this issue is outside the proper scope of Rule 5A:18, we nonetheless perceive no due process violation. The legislature acted within its authority when it created the sentencing guidelines and provided that those guidelines would be discretionary and not mandatory. It confirmed the discretionary aspect of the guidelines by leaving their implementation solely within the discretion of the trial courts and by excluding decisions relating to the application of the guidelines from appellate review. This structural determination denied Jett no substantive or procedural right that he was entitled under the law to enjoy.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.