Title: Commonwealth v. Blaxton
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 102360
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: March 2, 2012

Present:  Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, McClanahan 
and Powell, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
v.  Record No. 102360 
 
 
OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    ELIZABETH B. LACY 
JAMES BLAXTON  
 
 
 
 
 March 2, 2012 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 
Charles E. Poston, Judge 
 
 
In this case we consider whether a person who is adjudged a 
sexually violent predator can be conditionally released for 
supervision outside the Commonwealth because he also is subject 
to supervised probation for another crime and therefore eligible 
for transfer under the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of 
Adult Offenders (Interstate Compact).  Code §§ 53.1-176.1, et 
seq. 
 
James A. Blaxton was convicted in 1989 of rape, forcible 
sodomy and attempted sodomy in violation of Code §§ 18.2-61, 
18.2-67.1 and 18.2-67.5, respectively.  In June 2008, the 
Commonwealth filed a petition seeking Blaxton’s civil commitment 
as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Code §§ 37.2-900 et 
seq. (the Sexually Violent Predators Act or SVPA).  Following a 
trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Blaxton is a 
sexually violent predator and the trial court confirmed the 
jury’s verdict. 
Pursuant to Code § 37.2-908, the circuit court heard 
evidence on possible alternatives to civil commitment.  The 
2 
 
Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services 
(Department) prepared a conditional release plan which recited 
that Blaxton requested a transfer to live with his mother in 
Illinois.  The circuit court concluded that the SVPA does not 
prohibit interstate transfers of sexually violent predators and 
entered an order granting Blaxton conditional release, adopting 
the conditional release plan prepared by the Department and 
transferring supervision of Blaxton to the state of Illinois 
pursuant to the Interstate Compact. 
 
Subsequent to the circuit court’s ruling, we decided 
Commonwealth v. Amerson, 281 Va. 414, 422, 706 S.E.2d 879, 884 
(2011), in which we held that the SVPA does not authorize the 
conditional release of a sexually violent predator outside the 
Commonwealth.  Accordingly, the circuit court’s judgment 
adopting the conditional release plan and transferring 
supervision of Blaxton’s conditional release outside the 
Commonwealth of Virginia was error. 
 
Blaxton argues, however, that the trial court’s judgment 
should be affirmed because transfer of his supervision outside 
the Commonwealth was appropriate because he is subject to 
probation supervision for another crime and therefore qualified 
for transfer under the Interstate Compact.  Blaxton did not 
argue in the trial court that transfer of his supervision 
outside the Commonwealth was permitted under the Interstate 
3 
 
Compact based on his probation status for another criminal 
conviction.  Nevertheless, we address this argument here because 
it is a question of law and no further facts must be developed 
to resolve the issue raised by Blaxton for the first time in 
this Court.  Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 580, 701 S.E.2d 
431, 436 (2010). 
We reject Blaxton’s argument.  First, supervision of 
sexually violent predators cannot be transferred outside the 
Commonwealth.  Amerson, 281 Va. at 422, 706 S.E.2d at 884.  
Therefore, even if a defendant qualified for transfer under the 
Interstate Compact for some other criminal conviction, the 
specific restriction on a person adjudicated a sexually violent 
predator pursuant to the SVPA cannot be disregarded because the 
person may qualify for transfer for other reasons under the 
Interstate Compact.  Furthermore, the Interstate Compact does 
not specifically recognize a person under supervision pursuant 
to a civil commitment as an “offender” subject to transfer.  
Under the Interstate Compact an “offender” is defined as  
[a]n adult placed under, or subject to, supervision 
as the result of the commission of a criminal offense 
and released to the community under the jurisdiction 
of courts, paroling authorities, corrections, or 
other criminal justice agencies. 
 
Code § 53.1-176.2, art. II.  Under this definition, the 
supervision is imposed because of the commission of a criminal 
offense, not, as in this case, because of a civil adjudication 
4 
 
of sexually violent predator.  Rules adopted by the Interstate 
Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) pursuant to 
the Interstate Compact, Code § 53.1-176.2, art. VIII, address 
transfer of supervision of sex offenders, but these rules 
identify a sex offender as one who has been convicted of a 
criminal offense.  Interstate Commission for Adult Offender 
Supervision, ICAOS Rules, Rules 1.101, 3.101-3, available at 
http:// www.interstatecompact.org (follow “ICAOS Rules” 
hyperlink) (last visited Feb. 17, 2012).  Therefore, Blaxton 
would not qualify for transfer under the Interstate Compact 
based on his adjudication as a sexually violent predator.  See 
Amerson, 281 Va. at 422 n.2, 706 S.E.2d at 884 n.2. 
For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court 
adopting the conditional release plan prepared by the Department 
and transferring Blaxton’s supervision to the state of Illinois 
is reversed and the case remanded to the circuit court for 
further proceedings regarding whether there is any suitable, 
less restrictive, alternative to involuntary inpatient treatment 
for Blaxton consistent with the SVPA. 
Reversed and remanded.