Court Opinion

ID: 9382651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 15:11:22.726032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:40.899798
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Humphreys, Huff and Lorish

              TIMOTHY STEVEN SLOAN
                                                                             MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.     Record No. 0905-22-1                                        PER CURIAM
                                                                                MARCH 28, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                     FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY
                                                Richard H. Rizk, Judge

                              (Charles E. Haden, on brief), for appellant.

                              (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Jason D. Reed, Assistant
                              Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     Timothy Steven Sloan, appellant, challenges the sentence the circuit court imposed upon

              revocation of a previously suspended sentence. Sloan argues that the circuit court erred in revoking

              the balance of the previously suspended sentence and refusing Sloan’s request for admission into an

              inpatient drug treatment program. After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel

              unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.”

              Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).

                                                       BACKGROUND1

                     “On an appeal of a probation revocation, the trial court’s ‘findings of fact and judgment

              will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion.’” Heart v.

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413.
                     1
                       The record includes sealed materials; however, this appeal requires unsealing certain
              portions to address Sloan’s claims. “To the extent that certain facts are found in the sealed
              portions of the record, we unseal those portions only as to those specific facts mentioned in this
              opinion. The rest remains sealed.” Khine v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 435, 442 n.1 (2022).
Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 453, 460 (2022) (quoting Green v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App.

69, 76 (2022)). We review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the

prevailing party below.” Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 529, 535 (2013).

       In 2014, the circuit court convicted Sloan of petit larceny, third or subsequent offense, and

sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, with four years suspended for a period of ten years. The

circuit court revoked and resuspended the sentence in 2015 and 2018. In 2018, the circuit court

convicted Sloan of grand larceny and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment, with three years

and nine months suspended. One of the special conditions of Sloan’s suspended sentence—both for

the revocation and the new conviction—was that he enter and successfully complete the Newport

News Drug Court program and remain compliant with the program.

       In April 2020, Sloan’s probation officer reported that Sloan had been terminated from the

drug court program for oppositional behavior. The circuit court issued a show cause order on

July 23, 2020. In addenda, the probation officer reported that Sloan had incurred a new charge

of grand larceny and that he was convicted of the offense in August 2021.

       At the revocation hearing on September 7, 2021, Sloan conceded that he did not complete

drug court, had continued to use drugs, and had suffered a new felony conviction. The

Commonwealth moved the probation officer’s major violation report and addenda into evidence,

and the circuit court took judicial notice of the new felony conviction. Sloan testified that after

he was removed from drug court, he participated in a program through the Hampton Community

Services Board called Partners in Recovery. He found the program beneficial; however, he

relapsed while in the program. If released, Sloan intended to resume participating in Partners in

Recovery. Sloan assured the circuit court that he was now ready to take probation and his

addiction treatment more seriously. He noted that his non-compliance was related to his

addiction.

                                                -2-
       The Commonwealth asked the circuit court to find Sloan in violation and impose a

sentence at the high end of the guidelines,2 noting that he had violated the terms of his suspended

sentences “in many different ways.” Sloan argued that a sentence at the low end of the

guidelines, in addition to the sentence he was already serving on the new conviction, was

sufficient punishment. The circuit court found Sloan in violation and continued the matter for

disposition.

       At the disposition hearing on November 16, 2021, the circuit court noted that in 2018

Sloan had asked for an opportunity to complete drug court, which the court granted. Despite the

opportunity the circuit court had extended, Sloan was removed from the program because of his

behavior and attitude. After he was terminated from drug court, Sloan relapsed and tested

positive for fentanyl. In addition, Sloan had suffered a new felony conviction for grand larceny.

Finding it proper to do so, the circuit court revoked Sloan’s four-year suspended sentence.

                                            ANALYSIS

       Sloan contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by revoking the balance of his

suspended sentence and “refusing” his request to be admitted into the residential treatment program.

Sloan asserts that there were “mitigating circumstances,” including that he had been drug-free for

eight months before he was terminated from drug court, he had been incarcerated for eight months

before the revocation hearing, and he was now “highly motivated” to participate in the residential

drug treatment program he had found and been accepted into. He notes that the high end of the

discretionary sentencing guidelines was only two years and urges this Court to reverse the circuit

court’s judgment because the sentence imposed was “too harsh” and “non-constructive.”

       2
        The discretionary sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence between eight months
and two years’ incarceration.
                                             -3-
       Subject to certain conditions not at issue here, after suspending a sentence a circuit court

“may revoke the suspension of sentence for any cause the court deems sufficient that occurred at

any time within the probation period, or within the period of suspension fixed by the court.” Code

§ 19.2-306(A). Moreover, because Sloan “was convicted of a criminal offense that was committed

after the date of suspension,” the circuit court had the authority to “revoke the suspension and

impose or resuspend any or all of that period previously suspended.” Code § 19.2-306.1(B).

       To the extent that Sloan argues the circuit court erred in deviating above the discretionary

guidelines recommendation, we find no error because the revocation guidelines merely are a tool

for the judge’s use in determining an appropriate sentence. Cf. Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 42

Va. App. 461, 465 (2004). Moreover, a judge’s failure to follow the sentencing guidelines “shall

not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other post-conviction relief.” Code

§ 19.2-298.01(F). Accordingly, we consider only whether the sentence imposed represents an

abuse of the circuit court’s broad sentencing discretion upon revocation of the suspended

sentence. Clarke v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 190, 199 (2012).

       Upon review, we find no abuse of the circuit court’s discretion. Initially, we note that the

record reflects this was the third revocation proceeding on the petit larceny conviction. The

circuit court noted that in 2018 it deviated substantially from the sentencing guidelines so that

Sloan could complete drug court. But even by Sloan’s own account, drug court “didn’t turn out

well.” “The statutes dealing with probation and suspension are remedial and intended to give the

trial court valuable tools to help rehabilitate an offender through the use of probation, suspension of

all or part of a sentence, and/or restitution payments.” Howell v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 737, 740

(2007). The record demonstrates that Sloan was defiant with drug court requirements and

committed a new criminal offense while on probation. Thus, Sloan demonstrated that he was not

amenable to rehabilitation.

                                                 -4-
       “When coupled with a suspended sentence, probation represents ‘an act of grace on the part

of the Commonwealth to one who has been convicted and sentenced to a term of confinement.’”

Hunter v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 582, 587 (2010) (quoting Price v. Commonwealth, 51

Va. App. 443, 448 (2008)). Sloan failed to make productive use of the grace that had been extended

to him repeatedly and continued to engage in criminal conduct during the suspension period. “For

probation to have a deterrent effect on recidivism, real consequences must follow a probationer’s

willful violation of the conditions of probation.” Price, 51 Va. App. at 449. After reviewing the

record in this case, we conclude that the sentence the circuit court imposed represents a proper

exercise of judicial discretion.

       To the extent that Sloan argues his sentence was excessively harsh, this Court declines to

engage in a proportionality review in cases that do not involve life sentences without the

possibility of parole. Cole v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 642, 653-54 (2011). We noted in

Cole that the Supreme Court of the United States “has never found a non-life ‘sentence for a

term of years within the limits authorized by statute to be, by itself, a cruel and unusual

punishment’ in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 653 (quoting Hutto v. Davis, 454

U.S. 370, 372 (1982) (per curiam)).

                                          CONCLUSION

       The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Sloan’s suspended sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

                                                                                              Affirmed.

                                                -5-