COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Beales, Ortiz and Lorish

JUSTIN PAUL CHEVALIER MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0 784

- 21

- 1 PER CURIAM JULY 12, 2022 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE Stephen J. Telfeyan , Judge ( S ara M. Spartz, Assistant Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Justin B. Hill , Assistant Attorney General , o n brief), for appellee.

Justin Paul Chevalie r appeals from the decision of the Circuit C ourt of the City of Chesapeake revoking a portion of h is previously suspended sentence. Chevalier contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revok ed h is previously suspended sentence because the trial
court “ erred in concluding that [he] had violated the terms of his probation by absconding. ” 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)

. W e affirm the decision of the trial court.
BACKGROUND In 2012, Chevalier was indicted for malicious woundin g. He pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding under the terms of a written plea agreement that obligated him to pay restitution

. T he trial court convicted Chevalier of unlawful wounding , sentenced him to five years of

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413 , t his opinion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2

- incarceration , and ordered him to pay $4 2,438. 2 3 in restitution

. 1 The trial court suspended four years of the sentence, conditioned upon ten years of good behavior and three years of supervised probation “or until restitution is paid in full, whichever is longer.” In 2018, the trial court revoked Chevalier’s previously suspended sentence and resuspended two years and six months, conditioned upon “the same conditions as contained in the previous sentencing order.” In addition, the trial court ordered that Chevalier “have face to face meetings with Probation Officer a minimum of once per month” for the first twelve months of his supervised probation. Chevalier returned to supervised probation in January 2020. In April 2021, Chevalier ’s probation officer reported th at Chevalier had missed several scheduled office visits and failed to report for urinalysis on multiple occasions

. Chevalier had last made a restitution payment in July
2020. Chevalier had reported “an unreliable address” and had not been in contact with the probation officer since September 29, 2020. The probation officer did not know of Chevalier ’s whereabouts

. The report alleged a “Condition 0 6” violation for failing to follow the probation officer’s instructions and report as instructed, as well as a “Condition 11” violation for absconding. The trial court issued a capias, which was served on Chevalier on June 5, 2021. At the revocation hearing, Chevalier ’s probation officer, Jasmine Thompson, testified that d espite the trial court ’s order that Chevalier attend “face

- to

- face meetings” with h er, Chevalier had failed to report to three scheduled office visits. In addition, the trial court had ordered Chevalier to “submit to urine screens a minimum of twice per m onth ,” but Chevalier failed to attend six scheduled urine screens

. Chevalier also changed his residence without first obtaining Thompson’s permission. 2 Chevalier provided Thompson with his new address approximately a week after his

1 The trial court originally ordered Chevalier to pay $400 per month toward his restitution , but subsequently reduced the monthly payment to $200 per month.

2 Although moving without prior permission was also a violation of Chevalier ’s conditions of probation, it was not an asserted basis for the rev ocation proceedings

.- 3

- reported move; but therea fter he failed to make “himself available for supervision and his whereabouts [were] unknown. ” Thompson called Chevalier and Chevalier ’s parents to reestablish contact with Chevalier , without success

. Thompson then mailed a letter to the new address Chevalier had reported , but the letter was returned “ as undeliverable, return to sender, unable to forward, temporarily unavailable.” Finally, Thompson checked “central records” and hospitals and noted t hat Chevalier was not “in custody or hospitalized. ” At the conclusion of the evidence, the Commonwealth asked the trial court to find Chevalier in violation of both C ondition 6 and C ondition 11 of the terms of his probation. The Commonwealth emphasized that Thompson “did everything that she was required to do” to attempt to locate Chevalier

. Chevalier asked the trial court to “dismiss [ ] the [C] ondition 11 charge ” and argued that the Commonwealth had failed to prove that he absco nded from supervision because there “was nothing to indicate that” he did not reside at the address he had provided to Thompson

. Chevalier emphasized that Thompson did not visit his residence and only mailed “a single letter” that was returned “undelivera ble” without explanation. Chevalier “submit[ted] the [C] ondition 6” violation to the court

. After hearing the evidence and arguments, t he trial court found that Chevalier had failed to report to his probation officer

. With respect to the C ondition 11 absconding violation, the trial court found that Chevalier failed to report “ on certain da te s ” and failed to contact his probation officer to reschedule his missed appointments. The trial court noted the efforts that Thom pson employed to locate Chevalier and found Chevalier in violation of C ondition 11 of his probation. The trial court revoked Chevalier’s previously suspended sentence and resuspended all but four teen days of incarceration

. Chevalier now appeal s to this C ourt.- 4

- ANALYSIS Chevalier argues in his assignment of error that “ [t]he trial court erred in concluding that the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation by absconding.” He contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that he had absconded from supervision and revoked h is previously suspended sentence , impos ing an active sentence of four teen days of incarceration

. He does not, however, challenge the trial court’ s finding that he was guilty of the C ondition 6 violation for failing to report as directed. “It is well

- settled that a party who challenges the ruling of a lower court must on appeal assign error to each articulated basis for that ruling.” Ferguson v. S tokes , 287 Va. 446, 452 (2014) (quoting Manchester Oaks Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Batt , 284 Va. 409, 421 ( 2012)). Thus,

“ in ‘situations in which there is one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s

‘ failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth , 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v Hatchett , 245 F. 3d 625, 644

- 45 (7th Cir. 2001)). Of course, “we still must satisfy ourselves that the alternative holding is indeed one that (when properly applied to the facts of a given case) would legally constitute a freestanding basis in support of the trial court ’ s decision.” Id. at 117. “ But, in making that decision, we do not examine the underlying merits of the alternative holding

— for that is the very thing being waived by the appellant as a result of his failure to raise the point on appeal.” Id. If the trial court was correct on its alternative holding, it does not matter for appellate purposes that the trial court was wrong on the point appellant challenges

. Albritton v. Commonwealth , 299 Va. 392, 402

- 03 (2021)

. After suspending a sentence, a trial court “m ay revoke the suspension of sentence for any cause the court deems sufficient that occurred at any time within the probation period, or within the- 5

- period of suspension fixed by the court.” Code § 19.2

- 306(A). A probationer’s failure to report to his probation officer and to abide by the probation officer’s instructions provides “an adequate and independent legal basis ” for revoking the probationer’s previously suspended sent e n ce
. Johnson , 45 Va. App. at 117 ; s ee also Cod e § 19 .2

- 306. Accordingly, the record demonstrates th at there is

“ a separate and independent basis to affirm the circuit court ’ s ruling and we will not reverse it. ” Ferguson , 287 Va. at 453

. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.