Opinion ID: 6045096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: On appeal, Smallwood initially argues that revoking his deferred disposition and convicting him of possession of heroin due to his failure to pay court costs violated due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness under the Fourteenth Amendment. In raising this argument, Smallwood relies on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). According to Smallwood, Bearden holds that, prior to convicting him, the circuit court was required to find that there was no legitimate reason for his failure to pay costs. He insists that, absent such a finding, the circuit court was required to simply continue his deferred disposition. In Bearden, the United States Supreme Court held: in revocation proceedings for failure to pay a fine or restitution, a sentencing court must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay. If the probationer willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay, the court may revoke probation and sentence the defendant to imprisonment within the authorized range of its sentencing authority. If the probationer could not pay despite sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to do so, the court must consider alternate measures of punishment other than imprisonment. Only if alternate measures are not adequate to meet the State’s interests in punishment and deterrence may the court imprison a probationer who has made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay. To do otherwise would deprive the probationer of his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine. Such a deprivation would be contrary to the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment. 461 U.S. at 672-73. At its core, Bearden requires that the circuit court inquire into whether an individual has the ability to make the required payments. Id. at 672. If the court determines that the individual lacks the ability to pay, it must consider alternative measures of punishment. Id. However, if the court determines that the individual “willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient efforts 5 legally to acquire the resources to pay, the court may revoke probation and sentence the [individual] to imprisonment within the authorized range of its sentencing authority.” Id. The Commonwealth argues that Bearden is inapplicable in this case due to the fact that the parties entered into a plea agreement. In essence, the Commonwealth asserts that when Smallwood breached the Plea Agreement by failing to pay the court costs, he lost his contractual expectancy to the dismissal of the charge against him and, therefore, the trial court’s decision to convict him was not a due process violation. Stated another way, the Commonwealth seeks to draw a distinction between a deferred disposition imposed by the trial court pursuant to a statute and a deferred disposition imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. According to the Commonwealth, Bearden would only apply to the former. We need not address whether such a distinction exists at this time. Assuming without deciding that Bearden applies, we note that the record establishes that the circuit court made the requisite inquiry. During the November 13, 2017 hearing, the circuit court specifically requested information regarding Smallwood’s ability to pay his court costs. Based on the financial information offered by Smallwood and Smallwood’s affirmative representation that he could pay the costs with more time, the circuit court granted him an additional year in which to make the payments. This decision clearly represents an implicit finding that Smallwood had the ability to pay if given more time. Having determined that he had the ability to pay, the question before the circuit court was whether Smallwood made “sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay.” Id. at 672. As the individual who would have all of the relevant information on this issue, the burden was on Smallwood to make the necessary showing. See id. at 673 n.12 (requiring courts to consider “whether the defendant has demonstrated sufficient efforts to comply with the terms 6 of probation”). In Bearden, the petitioner presented evidence regarding his lack of income and assets and his repeated attempts to obtain work, which the United States Supreme Court indicated would support a finding that the petitioner had made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay. Id. at 673. Although Smallwood similarly claimed that he was not in a financial position to make any payments, he did not present any evidence in support of his claims, nor did he make any attempt to proffer such evidence. To the contrary, at the November 2018 hearing, Smallwood stated that he brought “all [his] pay stubs,” confirming that he was still employed, which, given his previous affirmative representation, supports a finding that he willfully refused or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to pay his court costs. Bearden expressly holds that, under these circumstances, a court is permitted to revoke an individual’s probation and sentence them. Accordingly, Smallwood’s reliance on Bearden is misplaced. Smallwood next argues that the Court of Appeals erred because paying costs was not a valid “term or condition” under Code § 18.2-251. He notes that Code § 18.2-251 does not specifically mention the payment of costs as a term or condition of a deferred disposition and he asserts that that imposing such a term or condition is ultra vires. We disagree. “[W]e presume that [the General Assembly] chose with care the words it used when it enacted the statute we are construing.” Bonanno v. Quinn, 299 Va. 722, 730 (2021). Here, the operative language of Code § 18.2-251 states that a court “may defer further proceedings and place [the individual] on probation upon terms and conditions.” The statute then provides that, “[a]s a term or condition,” the individual shall be required to “undergo a substance abuse assessment.” Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, the statute includes several requirements that must be included “[a]s a condition of probation.” Id. (emphasis added). The indefinite article 7 “a” is “used as a function word before most singular nouns . . . when the [singular noun] in question is undetermined, unidentified, or unspecified.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1 (1993). Therefore, the use of “a” before “term or condition” and “condition of probation” indicates that the General Assembly did not intend to limit the terms or conditions that could be imposed; rather, it sought to enumerate those terms or conditions that were required to be imposed. In other words, the General Assembly intended for the list of terms or conditions included in the statute to be inclusive, not exclusive. “Statutes that permit the trial court to impose alternatives to incarceration . . . are highly remedial and should be liberally construed to provide trial courts valuable tools for rehabilitation of criminals.” Peyton v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 503, 508 (2004). As such, the use of these tools lies within the broad discretion of the circuit court. Id. Therefore, the decision to require that Smallwood pay his court costs as a term or condition of his deferred disposition falls squarely within the broad discretion granted to the circuit court by the General Assembly. Smallwood further insists that, even if the payment of costs was a term or condition that could be imposed under Code § 18.2-251, the circuit court erred in convicting him because neither the Plea Agreement, the Deferral Order, nor Form CC-1379 states that a failure to pay court costs would result in a conviction. He also notes that the only document that mentions any consequences for failing to pay court costs is Form CC-1379, which only provides that he could be found in contempt. Therefore, according to Smallwood, at most, the circuit court could find him in contempt and refuse to dismiss the underlying charge. Again, we must disagree. To decide this issue, we need only look to the plain language of Code § 18.2-251, which states, “[u]pon violation of a term or condition, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as otherwise provided.” It is undisputed that the payment of court costs was included as 8 a term or condition of the Deferral Order and as discussed above, that term or condition was valid under Code § 18.2-251. As the statute expressly addressed the consequence of violating a term or condition, it was unnecessary to include similar language in the Deferral Order. Moreover, Smallwood’s contention that he was unaware that his failure to pay court costs would result in him being found guilty is belied by the Plea Agreement that he entered into and asked the circuit court to accept. The Plea Agreement specifically provided that, in exchange for his guilty plea, Smallwood’s “finding of guilt and the disposition of the matter shall be deferred for one (1) year,” subject to certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions was the payment of “all court costs.” Thus, it is clear that Smallwood’s obligation to pay court costs as an express condition of his deferred finding of guilt originated with his Plea Agreement. Contrary to Smallwood’s argument, the language of Form CC-1379 does not limit the circuit court’s ability to convict him under Code § 18.2-251. Rather, Form CC-1379 simply offers the circuit court a separate avenue of penalizing Smallwood for his failure to pay court costs: a finding of contempt under Code § 19.2-358. Absent any showing that the circuit court abused its discretion, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in choosing to convict Smallwood under Code § 18.2-251 as opposed to finding him in contempt under Code § 19.2-358.