A. The judge, after a finding of guilt, when fixing punishment in those cases specifically enumerated in subsection B, may, in his discretion, in lieu of imposing any other penalty provided by law and, with consent of the person convicted, commit such person for a period of four years, which commitment shall be indeterminate in character. In addition, the court shall impose a period of confinement which shall be suspended. Subject to the provisions of subsection C, such persons shall be committed to the Department of Corrections for confinement in a state facility for youthful offenders established pursuant to § 53.1-63. Such confinement shall be followed by at least one and one-half years of supervisory parole, conditioned on good behavior. The sentence of indeterminate commitment and eligibility for continuous evaluation and parole under § 19.2-313 shall remain in effect but eligibility for use of programs and facilities established pursuant to § 53.1-63 shall lapse if such person (i) exhibits intractable behavior as defined in § 53.1-66 or (ii) is convicted of a second criminal offense which is a felony. A sentence imposed for any second criminal offense shall run consecutively with the indeterminate sentence.
B. The provisions of subsection A shall be applicable to first convictions in which the person convicted:
1. Committed the offense of which convicted before becoming 21 years of age;
2. Was convicted of a felony offense other than any of the following: aggravated murder, murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree or a violation of § 18.2-61, 18.2-67.1, or 18.2-67.2 or subdivision A 1 of § 18.2-67.3; and
3. Is considered by the judge to be capable of returning to society as a productive citizen following a reasonable amount of rehabilitation.
C. Subsequent to a finding of guilt and prior to fixing punishment, the Department of Corrections shall, concurrently with the evaluation required by § 19.2-316, review all aspects of the case to determine whether (i) such defendant is physically and emotionally suitable for the program, (ii) such indeterminate sentence of commitment is in the best interest of the Commonwealth and of the person convicted, and (iii) facilities are available for the confinement of such person. After the review such person shall be again brought before the court, which shall review the findings of the Department. The court may impose a sentence as authorized in subsection A, or any other penalty provided by law.
D. Upon the defendant's failure to complete the program established pursuant to § 53.1-63 or to comply with the terms and conditions through no fault of his own, the defendant shall be brought before the court for hearing. Notwithstanding the provisions for pronouncement of sentence as set forth in § 19.2-306, the court, after hearing, may pronounce whatever sentence was originally imposed, pronounce a reduced sentence, or impose such other terms and conditions of probation as it deems appropriate.
Code 1950, § 19.1-295.1; 1966, c. 579; 1974, cc. 44, 45; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 498; 1980, c. 531; 1988, c. 38; 1990, c. 701; 1994, cc. 859, 949; 1996, cc. 755, 914; 1997, c. 387; 2000, cc. 668, 690; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 344, 345.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case:
Crank v. Rogers, 339 S.E.2d 909 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
Crank v. Rogers, 339 S.E.2d 909 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 33× “The issues presented in this appeal are whether Crank was denied: (1) due process of law at his sentencing because the trial judge failed to make a specific finding that he was not a proper candidate for alternative sentencing under *493 Code § 19.2-311; 1 1 23(2) due process of…”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “A truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence, then, will prove to be a difficult task, because evidence that will meet the high standard required by Code § 19.2-311(A)(vii) is of necessity limited.”
Walker v. Commonwealth, 486 S.E.2d 126 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “, Code § 19.2-311 (granting a discretionary exception for persons between the age of eighteen and twenty-one convicted of a felony not punishable as a Class 1 felony); Code § 53.”
Lafleur v. Commonwealth, 366 S.E.2d 712 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 10× “1 prevented sentencing the accused to an indeterminate commitment to the Department of Corrections under Code § 19.2-311. The sentencing alternatives under Code § 19.”
Bullock v. Commonwealth, 631 S.E.2d 334 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “1 in light of Code § 19.2-311, which allowed alternate sentencing for certain youthful offenders.”
Vaughan v. Commonwealth, 376 S.E.2d 801 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Opinion BENTON, J, Gertrude Jacqueline Vaughan, a minor, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder of her newborn baby and was sentenced to an indeterminate commitment pursuant to Code § 19.2-311. The issues presented on this appeal are (1) whether Vaughan owed a legal duty…”
Green v. Commonwealth, 507 S.E.2d 627 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1 in light of Code § 19.2-311, which allowed alternate sentencing for certain youthful offenders.”
Reyes v. Commonwealth, 823 S.E.2d 243 (Va. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Nord, Reyes' court-appointed counsel, moved for a continuance so that Reyes could be evaluated for eligibility for the youthful offender program established by Code §§ 19.2-311 through -316. The Commonwealth objected because the victim was present at the hearing to provide…”
John Carlos Bardales v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “After the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) requested that the circuit court review Bardales’s placement with DJJ, the circuit court on February 19, 2019 suspended his five-year incarceration with DOC on the condition that he successfully complete the special DOC Youthful…”
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Dwayne Jamar Brown (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “1 aims to deter violent criminal conduct by imposing a mandatory penalty” and that “[t]his purpose would be eroded by committing an offender under Code § 19.2-311 in lieu of sentencing him under Code § 18.”
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Demetrious Omar Brown (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “1 aims to deter violent criminal conduct by imposing a mandatory penalty” and that “[t]his purpose would be eroded by committing an offender under Code § 19.2-311 in lieu of sentencing him under Code § 18.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-311(A) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-311(A)(vii) — 1 case
Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“A truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence, then, will prove to be a difficult task, because evidence that will meet the high standard required by Code § 19.2-311(A)(vii) is of necessity limited.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.