COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Humphreys and Agee 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

ANTHONY WAYNE ROSS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1581-00-3 JUDGE G. STEVEN AGEE 

 MARCH 13, 2001 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE 

James F. Ingram, Judge 

 Joseph R. Winston, Special Appellate Counsel 

(Public Defender Commission, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Richard B. 

Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on 

brief. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

 Anthony Wayne Ross (appellant) was convicted of two counts 

of distribution of cocaine in a bench trial; he was sentenced on 

March 3, 2000, to serve a total of twenty years in prison, with 

four years suspended, and to pay a fine of $1,000. On May 31, 

2000, Ross moved the circuit court to set bail pending his 

appeal. The court denied bond, and Ross appeals that denial to 

this Court. He alleges that the judge implied at the hearing 

his ruling would be based on his determination that it would not 

be in Ross' best interest to be free and, therefore, the denial 
was an abuse of discretion. For the reasons set forth below, we 

affirm the trial court's decision. 

I. 

BACKGROUND 

 On the motion to set bail, the appellant's wife testified 

that Ross was born and raised in Danville and has extensive 

family in the area. Mrs. Ross testified that while out on bond, 

the appellant would reside with her in their Danville home. The 

trial court also heard that Ross had two crushed wrists for 

which he required surgery and a crushed foot for which he was 

undergoing treatment. Ross said that upon being released on 

bond he would undergo the requisite surgery and treatment. At 

the hearing the trial court stated that it did not consider Ross 

a flight risk. 

 To be weighed against the family and health factors was the 

court's knowledge of the appellant's extensive criminal history. 

Ross had been convicted of several felonies: shooting into an 

occupied vehicle in 1991 and possession of cocaine in 1993, 1994 

and 1999. Ross had also been convicted of numerous 

misdemeanors. On May 31, 2000 the trial court entered its order 

denying the appellant's release on bail pending appeal "for the 

following reasons: (1) Due to the circumstances and nature of 

the offenses and (2) The defendant's prior record." 

- 2 -
II. 

ANALYSIS 

Code § 19.2-319 . . . grants the trial court 

discretion in felony cases whether to admit 

a convicted defendant to bail pending 

appeal. This power to grant bail 

contemplates that it will be exercised with 

a reasonable discretion, and unless it 

appears to an appellate court that such 

discretion has been abused, the appellate 

court should not disturb the action of the 

trial court. 

Commonwealth v. Smith, 230 Va. 354, 362, 337 S.E.2d 278, 282-83 

(1985) (citation omitted). A trial judge may consider 

the evidence and the total record, including 

factors such as "[t]he nature and 

circumstance of the offense, the fact of 

conviction, the quantum of punishment 

assessed, defendant's . . . employment 

[status], defendant's record of escape[, if 

any], . . . defendant's . . . propensity for 

violence[, if any,] . . . age of the 

defendant, his health, his ties to the 

community, . . . and other factors relevant 

to whether the defendant will appear when 

required to do so and whether the 

defendant's liberty represents an 

unreasonable danger to himself and the 

public. 

Dowell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 225, 229, 367 S.E.2d 742, 744 

(1988) (citations omitted). 

 While the trial court stated that it had no concern about 

the appellant's future appearances, it was charged with also 

making a determination as to whether the appellant posed a 

danger to himself or the public. In making such a 

determination, the trial court may consider the appellant's 

- 3 -
medical condition and weigh those issues against the other 

factors such as the nature and circumstances of the crimes the 

appellant committed (distribution of cocaine, subsequent 

offenses), the appellant's extensive criminal record and 

propensity to commit additional criminal acts, and the length of 

incarceration imposed. 

 The trial court determined that an appeal bond should be 

denied due to the nature and circumstances of the offenses and 

the appellant's prior criminal history, as expressly stated in 

its order of May 31, 2000. A trial court speaks only through 

its written orders. McBride v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 30, 

35, 480 S.E.2d 126, 128 (1997). Such factors, as cited in the 

trial court's order, bear on the question of whether the 

appellant posed a danger to himself or the public. Therefore, 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the 

appellant's motion for an appeal bond. 

 Accordingly the decision of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 

- 4 -