Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns an appeal by an individual whose suspended sentences were revoked by the Charlottesville Circuit Court due to probation violations. The appellant contested the validity of the arrest capias issued for his probation violations, arguing it was based on unsworn statements and lacked probable cause. He also claimed that the probation revocation hearing exceeded statutory time limits under Code 19.2-306, and the court's re-imposition of sentences to run consecutively was contrary to the original concurrent sentencing order. Initially convicted in 1987 for obtaining money by false pretenses, the appellant had his probation supervision transferred to California. After failing to comply with probation conditions, a capias for his arrest was issued, which remained outstanding until his arrest in California in 1996. Following his release from a subsequent California conviction, he was extradited to Virginia, where the revocation hearing was conducted in 2001. The appellate court upheld the validity of the capias and the timeliness of the revocation proceedings, acknowledging that the probation period was tolled during his California incarceration. The court found error in the consecutive sentences and failure to credit time served, remanding for correction. The decision was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for sentencing corrections.
Legal Issues Addressed
Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentencing Errorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court erred in ordering the appellant's sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently, as originally ordered. The sentencing orders require correction.
Reasoning: The trial court's November 2001 order was found to be erroneous in sentencing the appellant to consecutive sentences instead of concurrent ones, and it failed to credit the appellant for six months of active incarceration served on indictment number 86-263-2.
Credit for Time Served on Suspended Sentencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant should be credited for six months of incarceration served on one of his sentences, which the trial court failed to account for.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the November 2001 order mistakenly imposed a fifteen-year sentence on indictment number 86-263-2, despite only fourteen years and six months remaining after accounting for six months served in 1991.
Time Limits for Probation Revocation Hearings under Code 19.2-306subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the probation revocation hearing was timely because the original sentencing order required the appellant to be on good behavior for ten years, and the time was tolled during his incarceration in California.
Reasoning: The court determined that the time for probation violation proceedings was tolled during appellant's incarceration in California, extending his probation to September 2002.
Validity of Capias for Arrest Based on Unsworn Statementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that probation officers are allowed to arrest probationers based on written statements indicating violations, even if those statements are unsworn.
Reasoning: However, the law allows probation officers to arrest probationers without warrants based on written statements indicating probation violations.