COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Huff, Lorish and Senior Judge Petty

WINFRED DEWAYNE MULLINS, SR.

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1365-22-3 PER CURIAM

APRIL 25, 2023

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY

C. Randall Lowe, Judge

(L. Dudley Senter; The Senter Law Firm, P.C., on brief), for 

appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Susan Hallie Hovey-Murray, 

Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

After pleading guilty to incest, rape, and aggravated sexual battery by a parent, the trial 

court sentenced Winfred Dewayne Mullins, Sr. to life imprisonment, plus 40 years, with all but 

40 years suspended. Mullins contends that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by not 

properly weighing mitigating evidence. We have reviewed the parties’ pleadings, fully examined 

the proceedings, and determined the case to be wholly without merit as set forth below and we 

unanimously hold that oral argument is unnecessary. Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).

BACKGROUND

On appeal, we recite the facts “in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the 

prevailing party in the trial court.” Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 231 (2022) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). Doing so requires us to “discard the 

evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413.

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.” 

Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)).

Mullins pleaded guilty to incest with a child between the ages of 13 and 17; rape by 

force, threat, or intimidation; and aggravated sexual battery by a parent.2 As part of his plea 

colloquy with the court, Mullins confirmed that he had read, understood, truthfully answered, 

and signed the “Guilty Plea Questionnaire,” which was proffered to the court. Mullins 

acknowledged that there was no agreement regarding his sentence and that the maximum 

punishment for his charges was life plus 40 years’ imprisonment. He also understood that the 

trial court was not bound by the sentencing guidelines, which might change after the probation 

officer conducted a pre-sentence investigation. Mullins affirmed that he discussed the decision 

with his counsel and entered the pleas freely and voluntarily.

Mullins stipulated that “if he elected to go to trial, that the Commonwealth would have

sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the three offenses charged.” The 

Commonwealth proffered that in October and/or November 2005 Mullins raped his biological 

daughter, W.J., “by forcing her to have sexual intercourse against her will.” W.J. was 14 years 

old when Mullins raped her. W.J. became pregnant, and subsequent DNA analysis established 

Mullins’s paternity of W.J.’s son. W.J. later told police that Mullins “threaten[ed] to kill her or 

punish her if she ever told anyone.” “During an interview with law enforcement the defendant 

acknowledged the victim as his biological daughter and acknowledged that he had had sexual 

intercourse with her during the time period.”

3

2 The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to nolle prosequi five additional 

charges involving the same victim.

3 The record does not disclose when W.J. reported the abuse, but the felony warrants for 

Mullins’s arrest were issued in November 2021.
- 3 -

The trial court found Mullins’s pleas were entered “freely, voluntarily, and intelligently 

with an understanding of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the pleas.” Based on 

the proffer and stipulations, the trial court convicted Mullins of incest, rape, and aggravated 

sexual battery and ordered a pre-sentence investigation report.

At the sentencing hearing, Mullins’s daughter, Victoria Mullins, testified on his behalf. 

Victoria stated that W.J. was her older half-sister. She attested that she lived with Mullins for 

nearly her entire life, they “did everything together,” and he had never behaved inappropriately 

with her. Victoria also never witnessed Mullins behave inappropriately with anyone else. She 

confirmed that she had never witnessed her father abuse alcohol or drugs, or view pornography. 

Victoria learned that the person she thought of as her nephew actually was her brother only the 

preceding year. Mullins had never discussed the crimes with her and did not apologize until he 

was arrested. She contended that Mullins was “not a danger to society” but a good provider and

that his children and grandchildren loved him.

Julie Ann, Mullins’s wife of 27 years and mother of three of Mullins’s children, also

never witnessed Mullins abusing alcohol or drugs or viewing pornography. Julie stated that 

Mullins never presented any concerning behaviors and that he was a good provider who loved 

his family. To her knowledge, Mullins had never threatened anyone. She was unaware of the 

rape until July 2021. When the allegations surfaced, however, Mullins did not deny W.J.’s 

account. Neither Mullins nor W.J. had told Julie who had fathered the child she regarded as her 

grandson. If she had known about the abuse when it occurred, she “probably” would not have

remained married to Mullins.

When asked if she was “standing beside” Mullins, Julie stated that she was there “for the 

truth.” Julie did not know if Mullins had ever expressed remorse for his actions; she understood 

that he had apologized to W.J. She affirmed W.J.’s son, A.M., had severe “mental health and 
- 4 -

behavioral problems.” Julie had “no idea” that the abuse was occurring at the time. She

expressed that Mullins’s friends, family members, and colleagues had written letters attesting to 

his character.

The Commonwealth argued that Mullins should be sentenced to life for the rape, plus 40 

years for incest and aggravated sexual battery. The Commonwealth noted that W.J.’s victim

impact statement recounted that she did not get to experience life as a “normal child.” W.J. 

stated that there was no escape from the abuse she had suffered. The Commonwealth noted that 

Mullins had served a prison sentence for physical abuse and neglect of W.J. when she was a 

young child, so “child abuse and neglect . . . [wa]s a significant piece” of Mullins’s criminal 

history. Mullins’s behavior was “strategic and manipulative,” and he had successfully concealed 

his offenses for a significant time. The Commonwealth acknowledged that Mullins admitted to 

the crimes and had not committed any recent offenses but noted that he had caused his daughter

substantial trauma and minimized his conduct. The Commonwealth argued that Mullins was not 

entitled to any sentence reduction because he expressed no remorse until the police arrested him 

16 years after he committed the offenses, that his assistance was unnecessary because DNA 

testing proved paternity, and that Mullins should be sentenced to life in prison.

Mullins acknowledged that he used his authority as W.J.’s father to sexually assault her 

but claimed he had expressed remorse and apologized. He noted that he pled guilty, knowing the 

possibility of receiving a life sentence, and was willing to serve time for the crimes he 

committed. Mullins submitted several letters to the trial court attesting to his good character. In 

addition, Mullins asked the trial court to consider an adjustment to the sentencing guidelines for 

acceptance of responsibility, substantial assistance to the Commonwealth (by not contesting the 

charges), and his expression of remorse. Mullins asserted that based on his letters of support and 

his acceptance of responsibility, he met the pre-sentencing report mitigation standards and 
- 5 -

should be sentenced to the adjusted low end of the guidelines.4In allocution, Mullins accepted 

responsibility for his crimes and apologized for the pain he had caused W.J., A.M., and the rest 

of his family. He hoped that W.J. would forgive him, asserted that he was not a danger to 

society, and pleaded for mercy.

Finding Mullins’s actions “heinous” and that he did not accept responsibility for 

destroying his daughter’s life until the police came to his door, the trial court sentenced Mullins 

to life plus 40 years’ imprisonment; it suspended all but 40 years. In addition, the trial court 

issued a lifetime protective order in W.J.’s favor. Mullins appeals.

ANALYSIS

Mullins contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an active sentence

of 40 years’ imprisonment. He notes that “[t]he sentencing guidelines called for a sentence range 

of only eight years to seventeen years and two months, with a midpoint of fourteen years and 

four months.” Mullins further asserts that there were mitigating circumstances that warranted 

leniency, including his asserted acceptance of responsibility.

“We review the trial court’s sentence for abuse of discretion.” Scott v. Commonwealth, 

58 Va. App. 35, 46 (2011). It is well-established that “[i]f a sentence imposed is within the 

statutory limits fixed by the legislature, the assumption is that the sentence will not be disturbed 

on appeal.” Bassett v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 580, 582 (1992). This is the extent of our 

substantive sentencing review “[a]bsent an alleged statutory or constitutional violation.” Minh 

Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 563 (2016). Mullins argues that the sentence was 

4 The discretionary sentencing guidelines reflected a range from 8 years of incarceration 

to 17 years and 2 months, with a midpoint of 14 years, 4 months. The adjusted low end, if the 

trial court found substantial assistance, acceptance of responsibility, or an expression of remorse, 

was four years.
- 6 -

procedurally unreasonable because it exceeds the guidelines recommendation and because the 

trial court failed to adequately weigh mitigating circumstances. We disagree.

“The sentencing guidelines are advisory only and do not require trial courts to impose 

specific sentences.” Runyon v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 573, 577-78 (1999). “[T]he 

recommended sentencing ranges contained in these discretionary guidelines are not binding on 

the trial judge but, rather, are mere tools to be used by the judge in fixing an appropriate sentence 

within the limitations established by the statute governing punishment for the particular crime.” 

Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 461, 465 (2004). A judge’s failure to follow the 

sentencing guidelines “shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other 

post-conviction relief.” Code § 19.2-298.01(F). Accordingly, the trial court did not err merely 

by imposing a sentence in excess of the range recommended by the guidelines. See Smith v. 

Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 620, 626 (1998); Valentine v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 334, 

339 (1994).

Furthermore, it was within the trial court’s purview to weigh any mitigating factors 

Mullins presented, including the letters from the community and his willingness to account for 

his crimes. Keselica v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31, 36 (2000). The record demonstrates that 

the trial court found it difficult to reconcile the accounts given in the proffered letters with the 

heinous nature of Mullins’s crimes. The trial court also rejected Mullins’s claim that he had 

accepted responsibility because he did not “take responsibility until 17 years later when the 

police show[ed] up and knock[ed] on [his] door.” That belated acknowledgment was not 

accepting responsibility, in the court’s view, “[t]hat’s getting caught and finally having to admit 

what you’ve done.” “Criminal sentencing decisions are among the most difficult judgment calls 

trial judges face.” Minh Duy Du, 292 Va. at 563. “Because this task is so difficult, it must rest 

heavily on judges closest to the facts of the case—those hearing and seeing the witnesses, taking 
- 7 -

into account their verbal and nonverbal communication, and placing all of it in the context of the 

entire case.” Id. Having reviewed the record, including W.J.’s victim impact statement, we find no 

abuse of discretion with the trial court’s sentencing decision.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Affirmed.