Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, 

JJ., and Carrico, S.J. 

JAMES HOWARD WILLIAMS 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 042647 SENIOR JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO 

 November 4, 2005 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

 This appeal involves the application of Code § 19.2-295.2, 

which provides in pertinent part as follows: 

A. At the time the court imposes sentence upon a conviction 

for any felony offense . . . the court . . . shall, in 

addition to any other punishment imposed if such other 

punishment includes an active term of incarceration in a 

state or local correctional facility, . . . impose a term 

of postrelease supervision of not less than six months nor 

more than three years, as the court may determine. Such 

additional term shall be suspended and the defendant placed 

under postrelease supervision upon release from the active 

term of incarceration. 

 B. The period of postrelease supervision shall be under the 

supervision and review of the Virginia Parole Board.[1] 

 The defendant, James Howard Williams, was indicted for the 

possession or transportation of a firearm after having been 

convicted of a felony in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. The 

defendant was also indicted for knowingly buying, receiving, or 

 1

 Code § 18.2-10(g) parallels Code § 19.2-295.2. Section 

18.2-10(g) provides in pertinent part that for any felony 

offense where the sentence includes an active term of 

incarceration in a correctional facility, the trial court “shall 

. . . impose an additional term of not less than six months nor 

more than three years, which shall be suspended conditioned upon 
2

aiding in concealing a stolen firearm in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-108.l. A jury convicted the defendant of both offenses 

and fixed his punishment at five years’ imprisonment on the 

first charge and two and one-half years on the second charge. 

 The trial court imposed the sentences fixed by the jury and 

in addition imposed upon him a three-year term of postrelease 

supervision. The court suspended the three-year sentence of 

postrelease supervision upon condition that the defendant “shall 

be of good behavior for ten (10) years commencing upon his 

release from confinement.” The trial court placed the defendant 

on probation “under the supervision of a Probation Officer” for 

three years upon his release from confinement.2

 The defendant appealed his convictions to the Court of 

Appeals. He argued there that the total sentence imposed, 

including the term of postrelease supervision, exceeded the 

maximum punishment the law permitted for two Class 6 felonies 

and that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing such 

a sentence. 

 

successful completion of a period of post–release supervision 

pursuant to § 19.2-295.2.” 

2

 The defendant argues on brief that the suspension of the 

three-year term “was conditioned upon the [defendant] being 

placed under the supervision of a District 9 probation officer, 

not under the supervision of the Virginia Parole Board which is 

what is contemplated and directed by Virginia Code § 19.2-

295.2.” However, this argument was not made at trial and, 

therefore, it will not be considered by this Court. Rule 5:25. 
3

 The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding that 

the sentences imposed by the trial court, including the threeyear term of postrelease supervision, “were within the ranges 

set by the legislature” and, accordingly, that “the [trial] 

court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing [the 

defendant].” The Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s 

petition for appeal by an unpublished per curiam opinion, and we 

awarded him this appeal. In the sole assignment of error before 

this Court, the defendant contends that the Court of Appeals 

committed reversible error in finding that his sentences were 

valid. 

 The Court of Appeals also noted the defendant made two 

other claims, viz., that “Code § 19.2-295.2 is ambiguously 

worded and that his sentence violated his constitutional 

rights.” The Court of Appeals held that the defendant “did not 

raise these claims in the trial court” and, accordingly, that 

Rule 5A:18 barred “consideration of these questions on appeal.” 

 The defendant makes these same two claims in this Court. 

However, he has not assigned error to the Court of Appeals’ 

holding that consideration of the two claims was barred by Rule 

5A:18. In the absence of such an assignment of error, 
4

consideration of these two claims is also barred here. Rule 

5:17(c).3

 Accordingly, we will consider only the defendant’s 

contention that his sentences, including the term of postrelease 

supervision, exceeded the maximum punishment permitted for two 

Class 6 felonies and constituted an abuse of discretion by the 

trial court. The defendant points out that each of the two 

felonies with which he was charged carried a maximum sentence of 

five years, for a total of ten years. The defendant then argues 

that when the three-year term of postrelease supervision imposed 

by the trial court is added to the seven-and-one-half-year terms 

fixed by the jury, his sentences total ten and one-half years, 

exceeding by six months the maximum ten-year term the defendant 

 3

 With respect to his constitutional claim, the defendant 

argued in the Court of Appeals that “[t]he trial court exceeded 

its authority to impose a sentence greater than the jury 

recommendation based on facts that were found by the trial court 

and not by the jury in violation of [the defendant’s] due 

process right to a fair sentencing hearing.” In support of his 

argument, the defendant cited Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 

296,___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). He also cites Blakely in his 

brief filed in this Court and adds Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 

U.S. 466 (2000). In both cases, it is stated that “ ‘[o]ther 

than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the 

penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must 

be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” 

Blakely, 542 U.S. at ___, 124 S.Ct. at 2536; Apprendi, 530 U.S. 

at 490. In view of the defendant’s failure to assign error to 

the Court of Appeals’ holding on this claim, we express no 

opinion on the applicability of Blakely and Apprendi to the case 

before us. 
5

says is allowed for two Class 6 felonies, resulting in an 

illegal sentence. 

 We disagree with the defendant. He would have us ignore 

the three-year term of postrelease supervision when computing 

the length of the term permitted for two Class 6 felonies, 

resulting in a permitted term of only ten years, but count the 

three-year term when calculating the total length of punishment 

imposed, resulting in a term of ten and one-half years, six 

months in excess of the permitted sentences. 

 This would be a misapplication of Code § 19.2-295.2. Under 

a proper application of the Code section, in determining the 

length of a permitted sentence, the three-year term of 

postrelease supervision is added to the ten-year term that could 

have been imposed for the two offenses of which the defendant 

was convicted. This produces a permitted term of thirteen 

years, greater by thirty months than the ten and one-half years 

of punishment actually imposed upon the defendant. Thus, the 

sentences imposed by the trial court, including the three-year 

term of postrelease supervision, were within the ranges set by 

the General Assembly and, therefore, were not illegal. 

 Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing 

the sentences. “[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 
6

of discretion.” Abdo v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 473, 479, 237 

S.E.2d 900, 903 (1977). 

 Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals. 

Affirmed.