COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Chaney, Callins and Senior Judge Petty

NATHANIEL JEREMIAH YOUNT MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1189

- 21

- 3 PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY

Bruce D. Albertson , Judge ( David L. Parker ; David L. Parker, P.C., on brief), for appellant. ( Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General ; Stephen J. Sovinsky, Assistant Attorney General , on brief) , for appellee.

Nathaniel Jeremiah Yount (“Yount”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Rockingham County ( “ c ircuit court ” ) revoking his previously suspended sentenc es
. Yount
contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by revoking seven years and eighty days of his suspended sentence s because the “amount of time .

. . vastly exceeded the recommended sentence of the Virginia Sentencing Guidelines.” After examining the briefs and record, this Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary because the appeal is wholly without merit

. See Code § 17.1

- 403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). For the following reasons , this Court affirms the circuit court’s judgment.
B ACKGROUND In April 2019, the circuit court convicted Yount of possession with intent to distribute a
S chedule I or II controlled substance and driving under a suspended license, third offense

. The circuit court sentenced Yount to eight years ’ incarceration with seven years suspended for the drug

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

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 UNPUBLISHED- 2

-

conviction and ninety days ’ incarceration with eighty days suspended for the driving conviction.
Y ount’s suspended sentences were conditioned on the successful completion of two years of supervised pr obation.
Within months of his release from incarceration , Yount was arrested in Orange County and plead ed guilty to eluding police and possession with intent to distribute a Schedule I or II controlled
substance

. Yount also failed to meet with his proba tion officer as instructed and did not seek employment. As a result, his probation officer filed a major violation report with the circuit court and requested that a capias be issued.
At Yount’s revocation hearing, the circuit court admitted into evidence the probation officer’s major violation report , addenda , and the police report for the new charges. The court also
admitted into evidence Yount’s criminal history. Y ount admitted that, while on probation, he had
committed new criminal offenses. T he circuit court found Yount in violation of the terms of his supervised probation and suspended sentence s
. At the conclusion of the evidence , the Commonwealth argued that the recommended sentencing range under the discretionary sentencing guidelines w as inadequate for Yount’s
crimes and asked the circuit court to impose an active sentence above the recommended range of six to eighteen months

. The Commonwealth claimed that probation had never worked for Yount in the past and that Yount was a danger to the community

. Yount argued that he accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty to the new criminal charges and r equested that the
circuit court impose a

n active sentence within the guidelines

. During his allocution, Youn t asked the circuit court to consider his history of drug addiction and the impact his actions had on his family. Yount admitted that he was ashamed of his conduct
and claimed that he was trying to rehabilitate himself

. Before ruling , the circuit court noted Yount’s- 3

-

extensive criminal history. T he court also considered that Yount was on probation for a drug
offense when he committed the same crime within months of his releas e. The circuit court determined that considering Yount ’ s extensiv e criminal history, including violent misdemeanors and repeated failures to comply with the terms of probation, it would be inappropriate to apply the discretionary sentencing guidelines

. The circuit court revoked the entirety of Yount ’ s suspended sentenc es without re

- suspending any portion thereof

. A NALYSIS A trial court “may revoke the suspension of [a] sentence for any cause the court deems sufficient that occurred at any time within the probation period, or within the period of suspension fixed by the court.” Code § 19.2

- 306( A )

. “It is beyond question that ‘[a] court which has ordered a suspension of sentence undoubtedly has the power to revoke it when the defendant has failed to comply with the conditions of the suspension.’” Russnak v. Commonwealth , 10 Va. App. 317, 321 (1990) (quoting Griffin v. Cunningham , 205 Va. 349, 354 (1964)). “In revocatio n 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 Va. App. 529, 535 (2013) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth , 12 Va. App. 81, 86 (1991)). We “view the evidence received at [a] revocation hearing in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party, including all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may properly be drawn from it.” Johnson v. Commonwealth , 2 96 Va. 266, 274 (2018) (quoting Henderson v. Commonwealth , 285 Va. 318, 329 (2013))

. Yount acknowledges that the circuit court had the authority to revoke his suspended

sentence s for failure to comply with the terms of probation , but he contends that th e court arbitrarily
determine d that the discretionary sentencing guidelines were inadequate

. Yount also argues that the
circuit court’s decision to revoke seven years and eighty days of his suspended sentence s was made- 4

-

without “ conscientious judgment” given the evidence presented. Yount notes that he assumed responsibility for the crimes he committed in Orange County and had received a “significant sentence” for those crimes. At the revocation hearing, the circuit court heard evidence of Yount’s drug addiction and family circumstances. A dditionally , the court considered evidence of Yount’s extensive criminal history and failure to meet with his probation officer and seek employment while on probation

. In sentencing Yount , the circuit court noted that his criminal history included drug
distribution. T he court added that , while on probation for drug distribution, he violated his probation by continuing to distribute drugs within “just months” of being released from
incarce ration

. The court found that Yount kept “coming back to” dealing drugs. The circuit court determined that given Yount ’ s record, it would sentence him above the discretionary guidelines and revoke the entire suspended sentence s
. “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). Youn t did not comply with his probation conditions as he continued to engage in
criminal conduct , failed to meet with his probation officer , and failed to seek employment

. The record establishes that the c ircuit court had sufficient cause to revoke Yount’s suspended sentences

. T his Court hold s that the active sentence subsequently imposed by the circuit

court represents a proper exercise of its discretion given Yount’s extensive criminal history and
contin uing criminal activity

. See Alsberry v. Commonwealth , 39 Va. App. 314, 321 (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”).- 5

- C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons , thi s Court affirms the circuit court’s judgment. Affirmed

.