Court Opinion

ID: 9897750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:24:37.578284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:43.116926
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Beales, Chaney and Senior Judge Annunziata

              ROBERT STEVEN MAXEY, JR.
                                                                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.      Record No. 1725-22-2                                           PER CURIAM
                                                                                    OCTOBER 3, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                   FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEW KENT COUNTY
                                               B. Elliott Bondurant, Judge

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

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

                      The trial court found Robert Steven Maxey, Jr. in violation of his probation for his 2012

              convictions for possession of burglary tools and destruction of property. The trial court revoked the

              remainder of Maxey’s suspended sentences, resuspended three years and one month, imposed a

              four-year sentence of incarceration, and removed Maxey from supervised probation. Maxey

              contends that the trial court abused its discretion in (i) refusing to resuspend his entire sentence to

              allow him to participate in a drug treatment program and (ii) denying his motion to reconsider his

              sentence. 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). Accordingly, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                                          BACKGROUND

        “In revocation appeals, the trial court’s ‘findings of fact and judgment will not be reversed

unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion.’” Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App.

529, 535 (2013) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 81, 86 (1991)). “The evidence is

considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party below.” Id.

        Upon Maxey’s guilty pleas, the trial court convicted Maxey for possessing burglary tools

and felonious destruction of property. By order dated July 3, 2012, the trial court sentenced him to

incarceration for ten years with eight years and seven months suspended. The trial court ordered

Maxey to comply with supervised probation after his release from incarceration for an indefinite

period not to exceed ten years.

        In December 2012, the trial court found Maxey in violation of his probation for using

alcohol while on work release. The trial court revoked Maxey’s suspended sentences and

resuspended them. In addition to the previously-imposed probation conditions, the revocation order

required Maxey to successfully complete the Salvation Army Program after his release from

confinement. Upon Maxey’s motion, the trial court subsequently modified the revocation order to

allow him to complete a program at Restoration and Wellness House instead of the Salvation Army

Program.

        In October 2016, the police arrested Maxey for violating his probation by incurring a

conviction for driving while intoxicated, third offense, refusing a blood or breath test, and driving

with a revoked license, DUI-related. The trial court found Maxey in violation of his probation,

revoked the suspended sentences, and resuspended all but one year.

        In January 2019, Maxey’s probation officer filed a major violation report (MVR) alleging

that Maxey tested positive for cocaine and alcohol, changed his residence without permission, and

absconded from supervision. In April 2019, the trial court found Maxey in violation of his

                                                 -2-
probation for a third time. The trial court revoked his remaining suspended sentences of seven years

and seven months, resuspended all but six months, and ordered that he be placed in the Community

Corrections Alternative Program (CCAP) upon his release from incarceration.

       In June 2022, Maxey’s probation officer filed an MVR alleging that he violated his

probation by failing to report to the probation office within three days of his release from

incarceration, missing two scheduled probation appointments, testing positive for cocaine, fentanyl,

and methadone, and failing to enroll, as instructed, in a substance abuse treatment program with the

Chesterfield Community Service Board. In addition, new criminal charges were pending against

Maxey in Henrico County and Prince George County. The police arrested Maxey for the alleged

probation violations in August 2022, and a probation revocation hearing was held in October 2022.

       At the October 2022 revocation hearing, Maxey stipulated that he was in violation of his

probation. Maxey testified about his strong motivation to participate and succeed in the Henrico

County Drug Court program—for which he had been found eligible in a felony drug case pending

in Henrico County Circuit Court—and he asked the trial court not to impose an active sentence so

that he could complete that program. Maxey testified that the CCAP program had ended three

months early due to program restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He claimed to have

no knowledge of the probation officer’s instruction to participate in the Chesterfield Community

Service Board substance abuse program. He asserted that he tested positive for fentanyl because it

was administered during his hospitalization for prostate cancer. The trial court expressed disbelief

in this claim and found that Maxey was “untruthful with the Court.”1 The trial court found Maxey

in violation of his probation, revoked his suspended sentences of seven years and one month, and

resuspended three years and one month, thus imposing a four-year sentence of incarceration.

       1
         After Maxey testified that fentanyl was administered to him when he was hospitalized
for prostate cancer, the trial court asked Maxey’s counsel, “does he expect me to believe that?”
Maxey’s counsel replied, “I don’t think hospital[s] prescribe fentanyl.”
                                                -3-
        Maxey moved for modification of his October 2022 revocation sentence, alleging that he

had documentation to prove that he tested positive for fentanyl because it was prescribed and

administered by doctors during his hospitalizations. At a hearing on Maxey’s motion, Maxey

displayed screenshots from a cell phone showing that he was given fentanyl in the hospital on

August 24, 2021, and May 29, 2022. The trial court denied Maxey’s motion to modify his sentence,

noting that it was Maxey’s third or subsequent probation violation and that he continued to use

cocaine. This appeal followed.

                                              ANALYSIS

                                                   I.

        While conceding that he violated the terms of his probation, Maxey argues that the trial

court abused its discretion in imposing a four-year sentence of incarceration. Although Maxey does

not claim that the trial court lacked sufficient cause to revoke his suspended sentences, he contends

that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider his mitigating circumstances, such as

his motivation to succeed in the Henrico County Drug Court Program. However, the record does

not support Maxey’s claim that the trial court failed to weigh his mitigation evidence. “Absent a

statutory requirement to do so, ‘a trial court is not required to give findings of fact and

conclusions of law.’” Bowman v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 492, 500 n.8 (2015) (quoting

Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 615, 627 (1982)). “Barring clear evidence to the contrary,

this Court will not presume that a trial court purposefully ignored mitigating factors in blind

pursuit of a harsh sentence.” Bassett v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 580, 584 (1992). Maxey’s

argument fails because there is no clear evidence showing that the trial court ignored his

mitigation evidence.

        The weight given to any mitigating factors presented by the defendant is within the trial

court’s purview. Keselica v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31, 36 (2000). Therefore, this Court

                                                  -4-
will not disturb the trial court’s judgment based on its assessment of Maxey’s claimed desire to

participate in the drug court program. Given Maxey’s numerous probation violations, the trial

court acted within its discretion in imposing a sentence of active incarceration within the

statutorily-permitted range. See Code § 19.2-306(C) (“If the court, after hearing, finds good cause

to believe that the defendant has violated the terms of suspension, then the court may revoke the

suspension and impose a sentence in accordance with the provisions of § 19.2-306.1.”).

                                                  II.

       Maxey maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motion for modification of

sentence under Code § 19.2-303. A trial court’s authority to suspend or modify an unserved

portion of a felony sentence is restricted to situations in which the person has not yet been

transferred to the Department of Corrections or within 60 days of such transfer. See Code

§ 19.2-303. The statute provides that a court “may . . . suspend or otherwise modify” the

unserved portion of a felony sentence if “there are circumstances in mitigation of the offense”

and “it appears compatible with the public interest.” Id.; see Wilson v. Commonwealth,

54 Va. App. 631, 641 (2009). “A mitigating circumstance is ‘a fact or situation that does not

bear on the question of the defendant’s guilt, but that is considered by the court in imposing

punishment, esp. in lessening the severity of a sentence.” Wilson, 54 Va. App. at 641 (quoting

Black’s Law Dictionary 260 (8th ed. 2004)).

       Maxey asserts that in support of his motion to modify the revocation sentence, he

provided evidence that he was administered fentanyl while he was hospitalized—thereby

corroborating his testimony at the revocation hearing that the trial court found to be untruthful.

Notwithstanding the evidence that Maxey was administered fentanyl in the hospital, the trial

court refused to modify the revocation sentence, noting that Maxey had continued to use cocaine

and had violated probation three or more times. Considering the totality of the facts and

                                                 -5-
circumstances, this Court finds no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny

Maxey’s motion to modify his revocation sentence.

                                          CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                                           Affirmed.

                                                -6-