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 -