third or subsequent technical violation in Virginia

2025Under Code § 19.2-306.1(C), a circuit court may “impose whatever sentence might have been originally imposed” upon a third or subsequent technical violation. “[O]nce it is determined that a sentence is within the limitations set forth in the statute under which it is imposed, appellate review is at an end.” Guest v. Commonwealth, 78 Va. App. 187 , 198 (2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 565 (2016)).

2025The record shows that Hodges has committed - 10 - more than two technical violations, so that under the statute, the circuit court was authorized to impose any portion of Hodges’s suspended sentence, or all of it.4 Sentencing “decisions—if within the lawful boundaries of applicable sentencing statutes and constitutional limitations—are vested in the sound discretion of trial judges, not appellate judges.” Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 563 (2016) (citing John L.

2023We will not reverse a trial court’s sentencing decision in the absence of an abuse of its “judicial discretion, the exercise of which implies -5- conscientious judgment, not arbitrary action.” Allison v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 407, 411 (2003) (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 325, 327 (1976)).

2022We will not reverse a trial court’s sentencing decision in the absence of an abuse of its “judicial discretion, the exercise of which implies conscientious judgment, not arbitrary action.” Allison v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 407, 411 (2003) (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 325, 327 (1976)).

2023We will not reverse a trial court’s sentencing decision in the absence of an abuse of its “judicial discretion, the exercise of which implies -5- conscientious judgment, not arbitrary action.” Allison v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 407, 411 (2003) (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 325, 327 (1976)).

2022We will not reverse a trial court’s sentencing decision in the absence of an abuse of its “judicial discretion, the exercise of which implies conscientious judgment, not arbitrary action.” Allison v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 407, 411 (2003) (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 325, 327 (1976)).

2024See generally Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017) (noting that “[t]he doctrine of judicial restraint dictates” that appellate courts “decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available’” (alteration in original) (quoting Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015))).

2024See generally Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017) (noting that “[t]he doctrine of judicial restraint dictates” that appellate courts “decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available’” (alteration in original) (quoting Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015))).

2022The trial court issued a capias to show cause in November 2021 and another capias in January 2022. 1 “In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party [below].” Poole v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 357 , 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)). -2- Adkins stipulated at the February 2022 revocation hearing that the probation officer’s report was accurate, that Adkins had committed a third or subsequent technical violation,2 and that completing the CCAP program had

2022See Canty v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 171, 179 (2010) (“Because the probation violation found in October 2008 was not itself a criminal conviction, the revocation and resuspension of Canty’s suspended sentence in October was merely a modification of the original suspended sentence.”); United States v. Evans, 159 F.3d 908, 913 (4th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he term of supervised release, the revocation of that term, and any additional term of imprisonment imposed for violating the terms of the supervised release are all part of the original sentence.”). - 13 - The final sentence of paragraph C reinforce

2022See Canty v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 171, 179 (2010) (“Because the probation violation found in October 2008 was not itself a criminal conviction, the revocation and resuspension of Canty’s suspended sentence in October was merely a modification of the original suspended sentence.”); United States v. Evans, 159 F.3d 908, 913 (4th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he term of supervised release, the revocation of that term, and any additional term of imprisonment imposed for violating the terms of the supervised release are all part of the original sentence.”). - 13 - The final sentence of paragraph C reinforce

2022Accordingly, Code § 19.2-306.1 permitted the trial court to impose up to the entirety of Adkins’s suspended sentences. -4- proportionality review in cases that do not involve life sentences without the possibility of parole.5 Cole v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 642, 653-54 (2011).