Ronald D. McCray v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Lemons ∗
    Argued at Richmond, Virginia
    RONALD D. McCRAY
    MEMORANDUM OPINION ∗∗ BY
    v.   Record No. 1276-99-2                 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
    MARCH 21, 2000
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS
    William R. Shelton, Judge
    William B. Bray for appellant.
    (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Richard B.
    Smith, Assistant Attorney General, on brief),
    for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.
    This appeal arises from orders revoking suspended prison
    sentences previously given to Ronald Donnell McCray.    McCray
    contends that his sentences for two felony larceny convictions
    were void, rendering the trial judge's revocation of the suspended
    sentences given pursuant to those convictions a nullity.     He also
    contends that the trial judge erred in revoking the suspended
    sentence given to him for a possession of cocaine conviction
    because that revocation occurred during the same proceeding in
    ∗
    Justice Lemons participated in the hearing and decision of
    this case prior to his investiture as a Justice of the Supreme
    Court of Virginia.
    ∗∗
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
    § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    which the trial judge revoked the suspensions involving the
    larceny sentences.   For the reasons that follow, we reverse the
    orders revoking the suspended sentences related to the larceny
    convictions and dismiss those cases, and we affirm the revocation
    of the suspended sentence in the case of possession of cocaine.
    I.
    On May 10, 1988, the trial judge entered judgment orders
    convicting Ronald Donnell McCray of three felonies.   The judge
    convicted McCray for possession of cocaine and sentenced him to
    ten years in prison with five years suspended.   He also convicted
    McCray for felony larceny, issuing a bad check in violation of
    Code § 18.2-181, and sentenced him to twenty years in prison with
    fifteen years suspended.   On another felony larceny conviction for
    issuing a bad check, the trial judge sentenced McCray to twenty
    years in prison with all twenty years suspended.   The larceny
    sentences were to be served consecutive to the cocaine sentence.
    Following a hearing on August 22, 1995, and a finding that
    McCray violated the conditions of the suspended sentences, the
    trial judge "revoke[d] the previously suspended sentence[s] [on
    all three convictions] but resuspend[ed]" the sentences on
    specified conditions.   At a hearing on November 21, 1995, the
    trial judge made a finding that McCray violated the conditions of
    the 1995 "resuspen[sion]."   The trial judge then "revoke[d] five
    years of [the] previously suspended sentence on the charge of
    possession of cocaine, but re-suspend[ed] two years under the same
    - 2 -
    terms and conditions as previously set out."   The judge ordered
    McCray placed on supervised probation upon his release from
    prison.
    On March 30, 1999, at a hearing to determine whether McCray
    had failed to comply with the conditions of his suspended
    sentences, McCray's counsel stipulated that McCray committed the
    charged infractions.   He also informed the trial judge that the
    1988 convictions for issuing bad checks "are Class 6 felonies" and
    that the maximum sentence that should have been imposed was five
    years for each charge.   Nonetheless, the trial judge ruled as
    follows:
    It's the judgement of the Court . . .
    [that] you have about 37 years remaining
    here [and] that we're suspending 2 [years]
    on your cocaine and 15 [years] on your
    worthless checks, and 37 years in all. It's
    the judgment of the Court that the suspended
    time be revoked and that you be sentenced to
    the penitentiary to serve all the suspended
    time that you have remaining here. I will
    again suspend all of that time that you have
    here with the exception of three years.
    Consistent with that ruling, the trial judge entered an order on
    May 2, 1999, containing the following:
    The Court SENTENCES the defendant to:
    Incarceration . . . for the term of: 2 years
    for Possession of Cocaine, 15 years for
    Felony Worthless Check, CR88B-615-02 and, 20
    years for Felony Worthless Check,
    CR88B-615-03. The total sentence imposed is
    37 years.
    The sentence shall run consecutively with
    all other sentences.
    - 3 -
    The Court SUSPENDS 14 years of the Felony
    worthless Check, CR88-615-02 sentence, and
    20 years of the Felony Worthless Check,
    CR88B-615-03 sentence, for a total
    suspension of 34 years . . . .
    McCray appeals from this order.
    II.
    The Commonwealth concedes that, when McCray was convicted
    in 1988 on two felony bad check charges, Code § 18.2-181
    provided that such a violation was a Class 6 felony and that the
    maximum sentence the trial judge could have imposed for such a
    conviction was five years in prison.      See Code § 18.2-10(F).
    Accordingly, the Commonwealth agrees that after the trial judge
    sentenced McCray in 1988 to serve five years in prison on one
    bad check conviction, the trial judge could not have later
    revoked any portion of that sentence.
    The Commonwealth also agrees that the trial judge did not
    specify either a period of probation or suspension when
    suspending all of the sentence on the second bad check charge.
    Thus, for any sufficient cause occurring within five years from
    1988, the trial judge had a maximum of one year after that five
    year period within which he could have revoked McCray's
    suspended sentence on that charge.      See Code § 19.2-306.   The
    trial judge did not do so.
    The Supreme Court has ruled that "a sentence in excess of
    one proscribed by law is not void ab initio because of the
    excess, but is good insofar as the power of the court extends,
    - 4 -
    and is invalid only as to the excess."     Deagle v. Commonwealth,
    
    214 Va. 304
    , 305, 
    199 S.E.2d 509
    , 511 (1973).    Applying this
    principle, we hold that the trial judge erred in 1988 by
    imposing a prison sentence in excess of five years on each of
    the bad check convictions and that, therefore, the trial judge
    had no authority on May 2, 1999 to revoke suspended sentences
    with respect to the bad check convictions and incarcerate McCray
    on those revocations.
    III.
    At the hearing on March 30, 1999, McCray stipulated that he
    had violated the terms of the suspended sentence.    Moreover, the
    record establishes that the suspended sentence for the
    possession of cocaine conviction was then still in effect.
    Although McCray did not raise any objection at trial
    concerning the revocation of the sentence for possession of
    cocaine, he contends on appeal that the trial judge also erred
    in revoking that sentence because it was done during "a unitary
    revocation procedure based upon a Show Cause for violating both
    void and valid sentences."   Absent an objection at trial, we are
    precluded by Rule 5A:18 from considering this issue.
    Furthermore, the record does not affirmatively show that a
    miscarriage of justice has occurred.     See Mounce v.
    Commonwealth, 
    4 Va. App. 433
    , 436, 
    357 S.E.2d 742
    , 744 (1987).
    McCray stipulated that he violated the conditions upon which the
    suspended sentence for possession of cocaine was imposed.
    - 5 -
    Furthermore, the record clearly established that at each
    proceeding since 1988, the trial judge separated and tailored
    each revocation to each conviction.   Indeed, the order appealed
    from specifies the precise portion of the revoked suspended
    sentence attributable to the possession of cocaine conviction.
    Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order.
    Affirmed, in part and
    reversed and dismissed,
    in part.
    - 6 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1276992

Filed Date: 3/21/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014