COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Beales, Causey and Senior Judge Haley

JASON FRANKLIN MAXWELL

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0448-22-2 PER CURIAM

AUGUST 1, 2023

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HALIFAX COUNTY

Kimberley S. White, Judge1

(Jennifer T. Stanton, Senior Appellate Attorney, Indigent Defense 

Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; John Beamer, Assistant 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Jason F. Maxwell of felony eluding, 

misdemeanor reckless driving, and driving on a suspended license, in violation of Code 

§§ 46.2-817(B), -852, and -301(B). On appeal, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his conviction for felony eluding and that the trial court abused its discretion when it 

sentenced him above the sentencing guidelines. After examining the briefs and record in this case, 

the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly 

without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).

BACKGROUND

On appeal, “we review the evidence in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth.” 

Clanton v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 561, 564 (2009) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

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

1 The Honorable Kimberley S. White presided over the proceedings below. Now a 

member of this Court, Judge White took no part in this decision.

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514 (2003)). That principle requires us to “discard the evidence of the 

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

favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” Kelly v. 

Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 254 (2003) (en banc) (quoting Watkins v. Commonwealth, 26 

Va. App. 335, 348 (1998)).

On July 31, 2021, Sergeant Joey Adams was traveling northbound on L.P. Bailey Highway

in Halifax County. As he arrived at the intersection of L.P. Bailey Highway and Volens Road, a

white pickup truck traveling southbound on L.P. Bailey turned left in front of Sergeant Adams onto 

Volens Road. As the truck cleared the intersection a black Chevrolet Cavalier, later learned to be 

driven by Maxwell, entered the intersection causing Sergeant Adams to slow down to avoid a 

collision. As Maxwell traveled through the intersection, his tires spun. Sergeant Adams executed a 

u-turn and followed Maxwell southbound on L.P. Bailey Highway.

As Maxwell turned right onto Cody Road, Sergeant Adams observed gravel and dust fly

into the air. When Sergeant Adams came to the turn, he observed that gravel had been thrown 

across the highway and that Maxwell was quite a distance away. Sergeant Adams activated his 

lights and sirens and accelerated to 90 miles per hour to initiate a traffic stop. Eventually, Sergeant 

Adams came within three car lengths of Maxwell and read the license plate to dispatch. Dispatch 

informed Sergeant Adams that the tag was possibly displayed on the wrong vehicle.

During the 28-minute pursuit that followed, which spanned 30 to 40 miles and entered 

Pittsylvania County, Sergeant Adams observed Maxwell disregard several stop signs, cross the 

double yellow line, pass two vehicles in a no passing zone, and reach speeds of almost 100 miles 

per hour. The speed limit on the roads Maxwell followed was between 45 and 55 miles per hour.

Two other law enforcement vehicles, including one driven by Virginia State Trooper David Clark, 

joined Sergeant Adams during the pursuit.
- 3 -

While traveling on Route 761 in Pittsylvania County, Maxwell came upon a motorcyclist

traveling in the same direction. Maxwell crossed a double yellow line and passed the motorcyclist

while a truck pulling a trailer approached in the opposite lane of travel. Sergeant Adams slowed

down to allow the truck to pass before he passed the motorcyclist. Sergeant Adams then noticed a 

sharp left curve ahead and braked. While entering the turn Sergeant Adams observed smoke and 

headlights on the right side of the highway 15 to 20 feet from the road. Maxwell had lost control of 

his vehicle and come to a stop facing the opposite direction in a residential yard.

Maxwell exited the vehicle’s driver’s side, ran towards the right side of the residence, and 

jumped a chain link fence. Trooper Clark pursued Maxwell and eventually tackled him in the 

residence’s backyard.

On cross-examination, Sergeant Adams admitted that he did not document Maxwell’s speed 

by radar. He further admitted that there were no marks on the road where Maxwell traveled across 

L.P. Bailey Highway. Sergeant Adams noted, however, that he took risks during the pursuit that he 

would not normally take to keep up with Maxwell. The Commonwealth then entered Maxwell’s 

Department of Motor Vehicle transcript into evidence.

At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Maxwell moved to strike the charges. The 

trial court noted that “this conduct occurred . . . on very, very dark roads . . . where there are no 

street lights [sic] in residential sections . . . of the county.” The court also noted that the roads 

involved were narrow country roads in hilly terrain and “where [there were] blind curves.” The trial 

court found that Maxwell grossly disregarded the speed limit and completely crossed over the 

yellow line into the oncoming lane of travel on both the curves and the straightaways. Further, 

Maxwell disregarded stop signs, slowing just enough to execute the turn. Driving in this manner, 

the trial court reasoned, endangered Maxwell, the pursuing law enforcement officers, and anyone 

else on the road that evening. The trial court denied the motion to strike.
- 4 -

At the close of all the evidence, the trial court denied Maxwell’s renewed motion to strike

and convicted Maxwell of felony eluding, operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, and 

reckless driving.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court reduced, without objection, Maxwell’s sentencing 

guideline points for the absence of prior criminal traffic convictions and prior felony adjudication. 

Over Maxwell’s objection, the trial court added four points to Maxwell’s sentencing guidelines

based upon Trooper Clark’s injury. The new sentencing guidelines ranged from one year, at the low 

end, to one year, five months, at the high end, with a midpoint of one year, three months.

Trooper Clark testified that he chased Maxwell as he was fleeing on foot. When he tackled 

Maxwell, Trooper Clark’s shoulder slammed into the ground, breaking his humerus head and 

tearing his left labrum. His labrum was reattached, but the humerus could not be repaired 

surgically. Trooper Clark noted that the surgeon removed the lose bone fragments and cartilage,

and the hole in his humerus head would eventually fill with scar tissue. He had regained 75 to 80%

of his shoulder mobility, but will need a complete shoulder replacement in the future. The trooper 

described constant friction in his injured shoulder, and he had not been released from doctor’s care. 

Trooper Clark noted that his immobilized arm affected his ability to parent his young children.

Maxwell testified he had been working on an invention when he was arrested. He admitted 

that he also had pending charges in Charlotte County at the time of his sentencing hearing. He 

apologized for Trooper Clark’s injury and expressed a willingness to pay restitution. Maxwell 

acknowledged that he made poor decisions but denied that he drove the vehicle. He claimed that a 

third person, whom he refused to identify, was the culprit. He asserted that because he enabled the

person to commit the crime, he himself was guilty.2

2 The trial court noted that Maxwell did not present these arguments at trial.
- 5 -

On cross-examination, Maxwell admitted that his brother and mother each died in a car 

accident. He acknowledged that he has “Gangsta Crip” tattooed on his back but claimed that he was

an inactive member and had retired from gang life.

In allocution, Maxwell apologized again to Trooper Clark and reiterated his willingness to 

pay restitution. Maxwell continued to claim that an unidentified person committed the crimes. He

claimed that by “enabling the individual to break the law [he] broke the law.” He then asked the 

court for leniency. The trial court sentenced Maxwell to 2 years and 18 months of active 

incarceration. Maxwell appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

It is unlawful for anyone who has “received a visible or audible signal from any 

law-enforcement officer to bring his motor vehicle to a stop, [to] drive[] such motor vehicle in a 

willful and wanton disregard of such signal so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of 

the law-enforcement vehicle or endanger a person . . . .” Code § 46.2-817(B). Maxwell asserts 

that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he endangered the operation of a law-enforcement 

vehicle or another person under the statute. He notes that he was not intoxicated, did not veer into 

oncoming traffic, was not in a residential neighborhood, and did not crash his vehicle. Because no 

other driver had to execute evasive maneuvers to avoid him, he argues, he did not endanger another 

person as contemplated by the statute.

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is 

presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original) 

(quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does 

not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a 
- 6 -

reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204, 

228 (2018)). “Rather, the relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have 

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v. 

Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193 

(2009)). “If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted 

to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by 

the finder of fact at the trial.’” McGowan, 72 Va. App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v. 

Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).

Under Code § 46.2-817(B), “[t]he object of the endangerment can be the driver himself, 

the police officer, or anyone else on the road that could be put at risk from the driver’s eluding.” 

Coleman v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 19, 24 (2008); see also Phelps v. Commonwealth, 275 

Va. 139, 142 (2008). To “endanger” is to “expose to danger, harm, or loss.” Webster’s New 

World Dictionary 448 (3d coll. ed. 1988); The American Heritage Dictionary 452 (2d coll. ed.

1982). “That the exposure to danger does not result in any actual harm is a welcome fortuity, but 

not a legal defense.” Coleman, 52 Va. App. at 24.

Here, the evidence showed that Maxwell squealed his tires as he crossed in front of 

Sergeant Adams, who braked his vehicle to avoid colliding with Maxwell. After executing a

u-turn and following Maxwell, Sergeant Adams activated his emergency lights and sirens and 

accelerated to 90 miles per hour to conduct a traffic stop. Maxwell disregarded Sergeant 

Adams’s emergency lights and sirens for nearly half an hour while speeding at almost 100 miles 

per hour through dark and hilly country roads with blind curves. The speed limit on these roads 

was between 45 and 55 miles per hour. Maxwell also disregarded stop signs, crossed double 

yellow lines, and, at some points during the pursuit, traveled completely in the opposite lane of 

travel. At one point, Maxwell passed a motorcyclist in a no pass zone while a truck pulling a 
- 7 -

trailer approached in the opposite lane of travel. The pursuit ended when Maxwell lost control of 

his vehicle, spun out, and came to a stop 15 to 20 feet from the road in front of a residence.

Considering these facts and circumstances, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Maxwell’s nearly half-hour-long evasion of the police

endangered himself, the officers, and anyone else on the road. Accordingly, the evidence was 

sufficient to sustain Maxwell’s conviction for eluding in violation of Code § 46.2-817(B).

II. Imposition of Sentence

Maxwell contends that the trial court abused its discretion in determining his sentence. 

He argues that the trial court did not give significant weight to his mitigating factors of remorse, 

lack of prior violent crimes, the loss of both his parents and his brother, rejection of gang

membership, and his military service. Maxwell further contends that the trial court abused its 

discretion by giving significant weight to Trooper Clark’s injury and the nature of the crime. 

Maxwell argues that the sentencing guidelines already weighed these factors and that it was 

improper for the trial court to give them more weight than the sentencing guidelines.

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

58 Va. App. 35, 46 (2011). It was within the trial court’s purview to weigh appellant’s 

mitigating evidence. Keselica v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31, 36 (2000). “Criminal 

sentencing decisions are among the most difficult judgment calls trial judges face.” Minh Duy 

Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 563 (2016). “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 

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

entire case.” Id.

“An abuse of discretion . . . can occur in three principal ways: when a relevant factor that 

should have been given significant weight is not considered; [or] when an irrelevant or improper 
- 8 -

factor is considered and given significant weight.” Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston-Willis 

Hosps., Inc., 282 Va. 346, 352 (2011) (embracing the Fourth Circuit’s definition of abuse of 

discretion). Finally, an abuse of discretion can occur “when all proper factors, and no improper 

ones, are considered, but the court, in weighing those factors, commits a clear error of 

judgment.” Id.

The record does not support Maxwell’s claim that the trial court did not consider his

mitigating evidence in fashioning a sentence. The trial court heard evidence that Maxwell was a 

former Marine who had lost a brother and his mother to car accidents. During his allocution, 

Maxwell apologized to Trooper Clark and reiterated he would pay restitution for Trooper Clark’s 

medical injuries. Balanced against Maxwell’s mitigating evidence, however, was the danger he 

imposed on the public on the night he drove recklessly and the lifelong injury he caused Trooper 

Clark. Thus, the record reflects that the trial court considered all the evidence presented, both 

mitigating and aggravating, before it imposed the challenged sentences.

Further, the standard sentencing guidelines “are not binding on the trial judge; rather, the 

guidelines are merely a ‘tool’ to assist the judge in fixing an appropriate punishment.” Belcher v. 

Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 44, 45 (1993). “[W]hen a statute prescribes a maximum 

imprisonment penalty and the sentence does not exceed that maximum, the sentence will not be 

overturned as being an abuse of discretion.” Minh Duy Du, 292 Va. at 564 (quoting Alston v. 

Commonwealth, 274 Va. 759, 771-72 (2007)). “[O]nce it is determined that a sentence is within 

the limitations set forth in the statute under which it is imposed, appellate review is at an end.” 

Thomason v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 89, 99 (2018) (quoting Minh Duy Du, 292 Va. at 

565). Here, appellant’s sentences were within the ranges set by the legislature. Code 

§§ 46.2-817(B), -852, and -301(B).
- 9 -

CONCLUSION

We find that the evidence was sufficient to convict Maxwell of felony eluding and that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Maxwell. Accordingly, we affirm the 

trial court’s decision.

Affirmed.