COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges O’Brien, Ortiz and Senior Judge Haley

VICTOR MATTHEW THOMPSON

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1434-22-2 PER CURIAM

MAY 9, 2023

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

Herbert M. Hewitt, Judge

(James Joseph Ilijevich, on brief), for appellant.

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Erin Dugan Whealton, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Victor Matthew Thompson appeals a civil commitment order entered under Virginia’s 

Sexually Violent Predators Act. Code §§ 37.2-900 through -921. On appeal, Thompson argues that 

the evidence was insufficient to prove that he remains a sexually violent predator and that he did not 

meet the criteria for conditional release. After examining the briefs and record in this case and 

because the record supports the trial court’s determination that Thompson remains a sexually violent 

predator ineligible for conditional release, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is 

unnecessary because the appeal is “wholly without merit” and we affirm. Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); 

Rule 5A:27(a).

BACKGROUND

In February 2019, Thompson was committed to the Virginia Center for Behavioral 

Rehabilitation for treatment as a sexually violent predator, stemming from his conviction for 

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

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

forcible sodomy in 2001. On August 23, 2022, the trial court conducted a review hearing to 

determine whether Thompson remained a sexually violent predator and, if so, whether he could be 

conditionally released. The trial court reviewed reports and heard testimony from Dr. Demetria 

Brown and Dr. Craig S. King at this hearing. Both doctors found that although Thompson was 

addressing his first sexually violent offense, his failure to take accountability for his second sexually 

violent offense prevented him from “moving forward” in treatment. Thus, both doctors opined that 

Thompson remained a sexually violent predator who was unsuitable for conditional release. By 

final order, the trial court recommitted Thompson for continuing treatment, finding that he remained 

a sexually violent predator who needed inpatient, secure hospitalization and finding that there was 

no less restrictive alternative to institutional confinement and treatment. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a challenge to a trial court’s sexually violent predator determination, 

“we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most 

favorable to . . . the prevailing party below, and will not reverse the judgment of the trial court 

unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Commonwealth v. Squire, 278 Va. 

746, 749 (2009). Here, the prevailing party is the Commonwealth.

ANALYSIS

Thompson argues that the evidence before the trial court was insufficient to show that he 

remained a sexually violent predator and that he was ineligible for conditional release. Viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must on appeal, we find that the trial court 

had sufficient evidence to find that Thompson remained a sexually violent predator who was not 

eligible for conditional release.

Sexually violent predators are individuals who have been “convicted of a sexually violent 

offense” and “because of a mental abnormality or personality disorder, find[] it difficult to control 
- 3 -

[their] predatory behavior, which makes [them] likely to engage in sexually violent acts.” Code 

§ 37.2-900. Such determinations must “be based on the totality of the record, including but not 

limited to expert testimony.” DeMille v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 316, 318 (2012). Review 

hearings for sexually violent predators are held every year for the first five years, and every other 

year thereafter. Code § 37.2-910(A). On review, the Commonwealth must show by “clear and 

convincing evidence that the respondent remains a sexually violent predator.” Code § 37.2-910(C). 

“If the court finds that the respondent remains a sexually violent predator, it shall order . . . secure 

inpatient hospitalization and treatment or . . . conditional[] release[].” Code § 37.2-910(D). 

Though Thompson contends that the evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that 

he remained a sexually violent predator and that he did not meet the criteria for conditional release,

the undisputed evidence—viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth—supports the 

trial court’s judgment. The trial court received the evaluations and testimony of two expert 

witnesses, Drs. Brown and King, regarding Thompson’s sexually violent predator status. No other 

evidence was offered. Although Dr. Brown more emphatically maintained that Thompson 

remained a sexually violent predator not suited for conditional release, Dr. King’s opinion was 

largely the same. In his evaluation, Dr. King stated that Thompson remained a sexually violent 

predator and that Thompson’s inability to discuss his second violent sexual offense “need[s] to be 

resolved, at least to some degree, before [he] . . . [can] be a candidate for conditional release.” 

Because the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Thompson remained a sexually violent predator, 

unsuited for conditional release, the trial court did not err in its judgment. 

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Affirmed.