COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Annunziata and Bumgardner 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

MICHAEL WILKERSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1287-98-1 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 JUNE 8, 1999 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY 

Rodham T. Delk, Jr., Judge 

(Robert E. O'Neill; Office of the Public 

Defender, on brief), for appellant. 

Appellant submitting on brief. 

Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

The trial court revoked three sentences because the 

defendant violated the conditions of his probation. It revoked 

sentences totaling ten years and two months, ordered the 

defendant to serve three years, and re-suspended seven years and 

two months. The defendant appeals alleging that the subsequent 

offenses were not serious enough to warrant the revocation. 

Finding that the defendant did not preserve this argument for 

appeal, we affirm the trial court. 

While on probation, the defendant was convicted of two 

counts of felony petit larceny and one count of assault and 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication.
battery. He admitted to the trial court that “there is no 

question that but revocation of the previous orders of 

suspension . . . is appropriate because there is a clear 

violation by a Condition 1 violation in these cases.”1 The 

defendant never argued to the trial court that these offenses 

were not serious enough to warrant revocation. He only argued 

that some of the sentences should be re-suspended. 

 “The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on 

appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. 

Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). 

Rule 5A:18 requires that objections to a trial court’s action or 

ruling be made with specificity in order to preserve an issue 

for appeal. See Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480, 

405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) (en banc). Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars 

our consideration of this question on appeal. Moreover, the 

record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or 

ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. 

 The trial court “‘undoubtedly has the power to revoke [the 

suspension of a sentence] when the defendant has failed to 

comply with the conditions of the suspension.’” Russnak v. 

Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 317, 321, 392 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1990) 

(quoting Griffin v. Cunningham, 205 Va. 349, 354, 136 S.E.2d 

840, 844 (1964)). The only limitation upon revocation by the 

 

- 2 -

 1Condition 1 requires the defendant to “obey all municipal, 

state, and federal laws and ordinances.” 
trial court is that it be “reasonable.” Marshall v. 

Commonwealth, 202 Va. 217, 220, 116 S.E.2d 479, 484 (1960). 

The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial 

court abused its discretion in revoking the suspended sentences. 

It is undisputed that he violated the conditions of the 

suspension when he obtained subsequent convictions during the 

probationary period. See Coffey v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 760, 

762, 167 S.E.2d 343, 345 (1969). 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the revocation of the 

defendant’s suspended sentences. 

Affirmed.

- 3 -