COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Bray 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

GARFIELD B. JOHNSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1655-97-2 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 DECEMBER 15, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY 

Richard S. Blanton, Judge 

 Michael J. Brickhill for appellant. 

 Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 This appeal arises from a proceeding commenced after 

Garfield Johnson pled guilty on March 17, 1997 to possessing with 

the intent to distribute cocaine. Before the trial judge 

sentenced Johnson pursuant to that plea, Johnson moved to 

withdraw his guilty plea. The trial judge denied Johnson's 

motion to withdraw his plea, found him guilty, and sentenced him 

to prison. Johnson's appeal from that conviction order has been 

affirmed by this Court today in Johnson v. Commonwealth, Record 

No. 1587-97-2. 

 After the trial judge sentenced Johnson pursuant to 

Johnson's March 17, 1997 guilty plea, the trial judge revoked two 

previously suspended sentences resulting from Johnson's 

convictions in 1996. On this appeal, Johnson contends that the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

trial judge erred in revoking the previously suspended sentences. 

 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment. 

 I. 

 In 1996, Garfield Johnson pled guilty to possessing with the 

intent to distribute cocaine, see Code § 18.2-248, and possession 

of a firearm while in possession of cocaine, see Code 

§ 18.2-308.4. The trial judge found Johnson guilty of both 

charges and sentenced him to five years in prison for the cocaine 

offense, with three years and eight months suspended, and to five 

years in prison on the firearms offense, with all five years 

suspended. The suspended sentences were conditioned on Johnson's 

"be[ing] of good behavior for a period of ten (10) years from the 

date of his release from incarceration . . . [and] pay[ing] all 

court costs." The trial judge also "placed [Johnson] on 

supervised probation . . . for a period of ten (10) years from 

the date of his release from incarceration." 

 Four months after Johnson was released from prison, he was 

again arrested and pled guilty on March 17, 1997 to possessing 

with the intent to distribute cocaine. After the trial judge 

denied Johnson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the trial 

judge sentenced Johnson to a term of years in prison. The trial 

judge then revoked the eight years and eight months that had been 

suspended from Johnson's 1996 convictions. 

 II. 

 A trial judge "may, for any cause deemed by [him or her] 
- 3 - 

sufficient which occurred at any time within the probation 

period, . . . revoke the suspension of sentence." Code 

§ 19.2-306. "The question of whether to revoke the suspension of 

a sentence lies within the sound discretion of the trial 

[judge]." Singleton v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 575, 580, 400 

S.E.2d 205, 208 (1991). Absent "a clear showing of abuse of 

discretion," we will not disturb the decision of the trial judge. 

Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 81, 86, 402 S.E.2d 684, 687 

(1991). 

 A panel of this Court today affirmed Johnson's 1997 

conviction for possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine. 

See Johnson v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1587-97-2. Therefore, 

the record clearly establishes that Johnson's conduct "during the 

probationary period was inconsistent with the terms and 

conditions of the probation and evidenced h[is] unwillingness to 

avail h[im]self of the opportunity afforded by the court. Under 

such circumstances, the judgment of the trial [judge] clearly 

constituted no abuse of discretion." Connelly v. Commonwealth, 

14 Va. App. 888, 890, 420 S.E.2d 244, 245 (1992). See also

Patterson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 1046, 1049, 407 S.E.2d 43, 

45 (1991) ("The appeal of the underlying conviction will 

determine the outcome of the appeal of the revocation 

proceeding."). 

 Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge's decision. 

 Affirmed.