COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Athey, Friedman and Raphael

GARY ALLEN GERMAIN, JR.

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1616-22-2 PER CURIAM 

APRIL 2, 2024

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KING WILLIAM COUNTY

B. Elliott Bondurant, Judge

(Charles E. Haden, on brief), for appellant.

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Victoria Johnson, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Gary A. Germain, Jr. (“Germain”) appeals the final order of the Circuit Court of King 

William County (“trial court”) revoking his previously suspended sentences. He contends that the 

trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his suspended sentences and resuspended all but 

three years, rather than allowing him to reenter an outpatient substance abuse program. We find this 

appeal is procedurally defaulted and affirm the trial court’s decision. 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). Therefore, the judgment 

of the trial court is affirmed.

I. BACKGROUND

“In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party [below].” Poole v. Commonwealth, 

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

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

73 Va. App. 357, 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)). In 

doing so, we discard any of Germain’s conflicting evidence, and regard as true all credible evidence 

favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from that 

evidence. Gerald, 295 Va. at 473.

On January 3, 2018, Germain was convicted, by Alford1 plea, of two counts of burglary and 

two counts of grand larceny before being sentenced to 40 years of incarceration. The trial court 

suspended the entirety of Germain’s sentence on the condition that he be of uniform good behavior 

for 20 years. The trial court then placed Germain on supervised probation “for an indefinite period 

of time, not to exceed 20 years . . . unless sooner released by the Court” and ordered him to pay 

restitution to his victims.

In September 2019, Germain’s probation officer filed a major violation report (“MVR”)

alleging that following a period of positive adjustment, Germain began using illegal drugs and 

received new convictions in Northumberland and Hanover Counties. On November 20, 2019, the 

trial court found Germain in violation of the terms of his probation, revoked his previously 

suspended sentences, and resuspended all but six months of his previously suspended sentences. 

Germain was released from incarceration on May 11, 2020.

On November 19, 2020, Germain’s probation officer filed a second MVR alleging that 

Germain had failed to follow his probation officer’s instructions by failing to report to probation 

within three days of his release from incarceration. Furthermore, he alleged that Germain had 

absconded from supervision and his whereabouts were unknown. Germain was subsequently 

found, and on May 5, 2021, the trial court held that Germain violated the terms of his probation

again, revoked his previously suspended sentences again, and resuspended all but six months again. 

Germain was released from incarceration on the second probation violation on December 27, 2021.

1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
- 3 -

In July 2022, Germain’s probation officer filed a third MVR alleging that Germain had 

violated Condition 8 of his probation—to refrain from illegal drug use—by testing positive for 

cocaine on February 3, 2022. The report also alleged that Germain violated Condition 6 of his 

probation—to be truthful and cooperative with his probation officer—in July 2022 when he lied to 

his probation officer about seeing his physician and receiving prescriptions. On July 14, 2022, 

Germain’s probation officer also sent a letter to the Commonwealth’s Attorney, advising that 

Germain had yet to pay restitution to the victims of his 2017 convictions.

At his third revocation hearing, held on September 21, 2022, Germain pled not guilty but 

stipulated to the facts alleged in the MVR. The Commonwealth subsequently entered the July 2022

MVR and the attached letter into evidence. Since the sentencing guidelines previously submitted to 

the court failed to capture Germain’s two prior violations, the Commonwealth submitted corrected 

guidelines for consideration. The suggested sentence in the corrected sentencing guidelines ranged 

from one year, at the low end, to four years, at the high end.

The Commonwealth then requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the previous 

probation violation orders from November 2019 and May 2021. The Commonwealth further noted 

that both of Germain’s previous probation violations occurred prior to Code § 19.2-306(C) being

amended.2 Germain’s first previous violation was for new convictions he received while on 

probation,

3

and Germain’s second previous violation was for failure to report to probation within 

three days of release of incarceration, failure to be truthful and cooperative with his probation 

officer, and absconding.

2 Code § 19.2-306(C) was amended and Code § 19.2-306.1 was codified effective July 1, 

2021. 2021 Va. Acts Spec. Sess. I ch. 538.

3 At the revocation hearing, the Commonwealth agreed that Germain’s new convictions 

were not technical violations under Code § 19.2-306.1.
- 4 -

During oral argument, the Commonwealth contended that Germain continued to be 

untruthful with his probation officer and he had not taken steps to address his mental health or drug 

abuse, which led him to commit new crimes. The Commonwealth further argued that Germain’s 

second probation violation should be considered a technical violation for purposes of sentencing

under Code § 19.2-306.1(C). The Commonwealth concluded by requesting that the trial court 

revoke and resuspend all but three years of Germain’s previously suspended sentences. The 

Commonwealth also requested that the trial court direct that Germain be enrolled in and complete a 

therapeutic program.

In response, Germain argued that his most recent violations were less serious than his 

previous violations since testing positive for cocaine was a less severe violation than committing 

new crimes or absconding from probation. Consequently, he claimed, the trial court should not 

sentence him more harshly than the trial court had for his previous violations. He also admitted that 

he had been untruthful about being prescribed certain prescription drugs but noted that he was 

truthful about the treatment he was receiving. He further assured the trial court that upon his release 

from incarceration, he had a stable residence and employment arranged. He concluded by 

acknowledging that he would likely be sentenced to serve some time but asked for a period of 

incarceration equal to the time it would take for him to complete a therapeutic drug program.

The trial court found Germain in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation,

revoked the entirety of his suspended sentences, and resuspended all but three years. Germain 

appealed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

“In revocation appeals, the trial court’s ‘findings of fact and judgment will not be 

reversed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion.’” Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 61 
- 5 -

Va. App. 529, 535 (2013) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 81, 86 (1991)). “The 

evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party 

below.” Id.

B. Germain’s assignment of error is procedurally defaulted, and insofar as it is not

procedurally defaulted, it is meritless.

Germain assigns error to the trial court sentencing him to active incarceration instead of 

resuspending the entirety of his previously suspended sentences and allowing him to complete 

substance abuse treatment. We find this assignment of error procedurally defaulted.

“No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an 

objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause 

shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice.” Rule 5A:18. “Procedural-default 

principles require that the argument asserted on appeal be the same as the contemporaneous 

argument at trial.” Bethea v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730, 743 (2019).

At the revocation hearing, Germain simply asked for a comparatively lesser sentence of 

incarceration. He did not argue that he should not have been incarcerated, nor did he ask the trial 

court to order his participation in substance counseling. Therefore, his assignment of error raises 

issues for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it.

Further, insofar as his assignment of error is not waived, it is meritless. Germain’s sole 

argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking three years of his 

suspended sentences.4 “In revocation appeals, the trial court’s ‘findings of fact and judgment 

4 Under Code § 19.2-306.1(C), a trial court “shall not impose a sentence of a term of 

active incarceration upon a first technical violation of the terms and conditions of a suspended 

sentence or probation . . . .” Upon a second technical violation, “there shall be a presumption 

against imposing a sentence of a term of active incarceration,” but, upon a finding by the 

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant “cannot be safely diverted from active 

incarceration through less restrictive means,” the trial court “may impose not more than 14 days 

of active incarceration[.]” Code § 19.2-306.1(C). For a “third or subsequent technical 

violation,” “[t]he court may impose whatever sentence might have been originally imposed[.]” 
- 6 -

will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion.’” Jacobs, 61 Va. App. 

at 535 (quoting Davis, 12 Va. App. at 86). “If the court, after hearing, finds good cause to 

believe that the defendant has violated the terms of suspension, then the court may revoke the 

suspension and impose a sentence in accordance with the provisions of § 19.2-306.1.” Code 

§ 19.2-306(C).

Germain argues that the trial court should have given more weight to his motivation to 

complete an outpatient substance abuse treatment program, his mental health issues, and the 

support his family was willing to provide upon his release. Weighing any mitigating factors 

presented by a defendant falls within the trial court’s purview in determining the defendant’s 

sentence. Keselica v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31, 36 (2000). This Court will not disturb 

the trial court’s judgment based on its assessment of Germain’s mitigation evidence alone.

The record demonstrates that during the suspension period related to his original 

convictions, Germain tested positive for cocaine and lied to his probation officer about his 

medical appointments and the prescriptions he had been prescribed. “The statutes dealing with 

probation and suspension are remedial and intended to give the trial court valuable tools to help 

rehabilitate an offender through the use of probation, suspension of all or part of a sentence, 

and/or restitution payments.” Howell v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 737, 740 (2007). “When 

coupled with a suspended sentence, probation represents ‘an act of grace on the part of the 

Commonwealth to one who has been convicted and sentenced to a term of confinement.’” 

Hunter v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 582, 587 (2010) (quoting Price v. Commonwealth, 51 

Va. App. 443, 448 (2008)). Germain failed to make productive use of the grace that had been 

extended to him when he used cocaine and was untruthful with his probation officer while on 

Id. Notably, Germain does not assert that Code § 19.2-306.1(C)’s sentencing limitations apply to 

his revoked sentences. Consequently, we will not consider whether Code § 19.2-306.1(C)’s 

limitations are applicable here.
- 7 -

supervised probation. Germain’s disregard of the terms of his suspended sentences supports a 

finding that he was not amenable to rehabilitation.

Accordingly, we hold that the sentence the trial court imposed represents a proper 

exercise of its sentencing discretion. See Alsberry v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 314, 322 

(2002) (finding the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the defendant’s previously 

suspended sentence in its entirety “in light of the grievous nature of [the defendant’s] offenses 

and his continuing criminal activity”).

III. CONCLUSION

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

Affirmed.