Derrick Eugene Baldwin v. Commonwealth of VA ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                      COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Willis, Bumgardner and Agee
    Argued by teleconference
    DERRICK EUGENE BALDWIN
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 2722-00-3              JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
    MAY 7, 2002
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
    Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge
    Randy V. Cargill (Magee, Foster, Goldstein &
    Sayers, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
    Robert H. Anderson, III, Senior Assistant
    Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney
    General, on brief), for appellee.
    The trial court revoked Derrick Eugene Baldwin's suspended
    sentence and sentenced him to seven years in prison.     It
    re-suspended four years on the condition that he complete two
    years probation upon his release and pay court costs.     The
    defendant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke
    his suspended sentence.     For the following reasons, we affirm.
    On July 9, 1996, the defendant was convicted of possession
    of cocaine with intent to distribute and sentenced to seven
    * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    years in prison. 1   The trial court suspended the entire sentence
    but prescribed no period of suspension.    It suspended three
    years on the condition that the defendant complete the Detention
    Center Incarceration Program and that he complete two years of
    probation upon release from incarceration.    The defendant
    entered and completed the detention program December 20, 1996.
    His period of probation ran through December 20, 1998.
    In the spring of 1998, the defendant's probation officer
    requested a show cause order because of subsequent convictions
    and other probation violations.    The trial court issued a capias
    for the defendant's arrest on April 24, 1998.    It was not served
    on the defendant until August 11, 2000.    On November 9, 2000,
    the trial court found the defendant violated the conditions of
    the suspended sentence and of probation, and it revoked his
    suspension.
    1
    The 1996 sentencing order is not a part of the record.
    The appendix reflects the trial judge reading from the order as
    follows:
    In this case it says, "Sentenced to pay
    $100 fine, which fine is suspended,
    committed to the Department of Corrections
    for a period of seven years, to be suspended
    after he has served three years, plus costs,
    and that three years is further suspended
    upon the Defendant's transfer to the
    Detention Center, and placed on probation
    conditioned that he enter into and
    successfully complete the Detention Center
    Incarceration Program, successful completion
    of the program, successfully complete
    probation, be of good behavior," and so on.
    - 2 -
    Code § 19.2-306 provides:
    The court may, for any cause deemed by it
    sufficient which occurred at any time within
    the probation period, or if none, within the
    period of suspension fixed by the court, or
    if neither, within the maximum period for
    which the defendant might originally have
    been sentenced to be imprisoned, revoke the
    suspension of sentence and any probation, if
    the defendant be on probation, and cause the
    defendant to be arrested and brought before
    the court . . . within one year after the
    maximum period for which the defendant might
    originally have been sentenced to be
    imprisoned, whereupon, in case the
    imposition of sentence has been suspended,
    the court may pronounce whatever sentence
    might have been originally imposed.
    (Emphasis added.)
    The original sentence suspended execution of the
    defendant's sentence for an unspecified period.    Under Code
    § 19.2-306, the trial court could revoke that suspended sentence
    during a period of the maximum prescribed sentence plus one
    year.     Carbaugh v. Commonwealth, 
    19 Va. App. 119
    , 123-24, 
    449 S.E.2d 264
    , 266 (1994).     The maximum sentence for the original
    offense was forty years.    Code § 18.2-248(C).   The trial court's
    action occurred well within the prescribed period of forty-one
    years.    Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to act as it
    did, and we affirm.
    Accordingly, the defendant's argument is without merit, and
    the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2722003

Filed Date: 5/7/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021