Opinion ID: 1058952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Court Error Participation in the Program as Incarceration

Text: The Commonwealth argues, and the Court of Appeals held, that, pursuant to Code § 19.2-316.2, participation in the Program is a condition of probation and therefore such participation is not incarceration. Designating an activity as an authorized condition of probation, however, is not a description of the nature of the activity. Indeed, the Commonwealth acknowledges this fact by suggesting that additional evidence is necessary in this case to determine whether conditions of the Program are strongly similar to traditional incarceration or whether they more closely resemble some lesser form of restraint. Additional evidence is not required, as the Commonwealth suggests, because the statutes addressing the Program are dispositive of the issue in this case. Code § 53.1-67.8 authorizes the Department of Corrections to maintain a system of residential detention centers to provide a highly structured, short-term period of incarceration for individuals committed to the Department under the provisions of § 19.2-316.2 (emphasis added). Code § 19.2-316.2 specifically labels the program as an incarceration program; it refers to facilities available for confinement, release from confinement, and a detention center incarceration program that required more security or supervision than other programs. We do not consider these references to incarceration to be inadvertent; by describing the Program in this manner, the General Assembly has determined that participation in the Program is incarceration. Accordingly, we hold that Charles was incarcerated when he participated in the Program. Therefore, when Charles' second probation was revoked, he had been incarcerated for one year and five months. By sentencing him to four years imprisonment, the trial court added five months incarceration to Charles' original five-year sentence.