eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Virginia
 2000-03

Christopher Lee Deaner v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •                   COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Coleman, Annunziata and Bumgardner
Argued at Salem, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER LEE DEANER
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v.   Record No. 2350-98-3          JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA
MARCH 7, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG
Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge
Craig P. Tiller (Davidson, Sakolosky,
Moseley & Tiller, P.C., on briefs), for
appellant.
Shelly R. James, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Christopher Lee Deaner was convicted in the General
District Court of the City of Lynchburg on January 24, 1997, on
charges of assault and battery and of sexual battery.   He was
sentenced to twelve months in jail on each conviction, ten
months suspended on each, with supervised probation.    Deaner
subsequently was convicted of a misdemeanor, which resulted in a
proceeding to revoke the suspended sentences.    Upon appeal to
the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg, the court revoked
suspension of his previous sentences.   The court ordered him to
serve the reinstated sentences consecutively.    Deaner alleges
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
that the sentences were originally ordered to run concurrently
and that the circuit court erred in reinstating them for
consecutive terms.   Because Deaner has failed to provide a
record sufficient to allow us to determine the merits of his
case, we affirm the trial court's decision.
ANALYSIS
Upon review, the Court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, the party prevailing below.     See
Harrell v. Commonwealth,
    30 Va. App. 398
    , 403,
    517 S.E.2d 256
    ,
258 (1999); Greene v. Commonwealth,
    17 Va. App. 606
    , 608,
    440 S.E.2d 138
    , 139 (1994).   While we agree that once sentences have
been ordered to run concurrently, a court cannot later revoke a
suspension of the sentences and order them to run consecutively,
see Robertson v. Sup. of Wise Corr. Unit,
    248 Va. 232
    , 236,
    445 S.E.2d 116
    , 118 (1994), Deaner has failed to provide a complete
and sufficient record to the reviewing court to allow the claim
to be adjudicated.   See Woodward v. Commonwealth,
    16 Va. App. 672
    , 677,
    432 S.E.2d 510
    , 513 (1993).   This Court must "turn to
the language of the order to determine the original sentencing
judge's intent" in deciding whether sentences were to be
concurrent or consecutive.   Wood v. Commonwealth,
    12 Va. App. 1257
    , 1260,
    408 S.E.2d 568
    , 570 (1991).   Defense counsel
conceded that the general district court's warrant did not
reflect whether the sentences were to run concurrently or
- 2 -
consecutively.   Defense counsel represented, however, that the
"disposition notice" to corrections personnel stated that the
sentences were to run concurrently.     This form is absent from
the record, and defense counsel's proffer of its contents did
not prove that the court ordered the sentences to run
concurrently.    Absent a complete record, the trial court's
decision must be affirmed.    See White v. Morano,
    249 Va. 27
    , 30,
    452 S.E.2d 856
    , 858 (1995) (citing Woods v. R. D. Hunt & Son,
Inc.,
    207 Va. 281
    , 287,
    148 S.E.2d 779
    , 783 (1966)).
Consequently, we must affirm the trial court's decision.
Affirmed.
- 3 -