Court Opinion

ID: 9897825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:25:35.879003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:02.894746
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Humphreys, White and Retired Judge Frank*
UNPUBLISHED

              ANTONIO LAMONT BEST
                                                                              MEMORANDUM OPINION**
              v.     Record No. 1804-22-3                                          PER CURIAM
                                                                                SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE
                                             Joseph W. Milam, Jr., Judge

                               (Lauren Brice, Assistant Public Defender; Virginia Indigent Defense
                               Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

                               (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; John Beamer, Assistant
                               Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     After a guilty plea, the Circuit Court of the City of Danville convicted Antonio Lamont Best

              of breaking and entering at night and petit larceny. The circuit court imposed a total sentence of 8

              years and 12 months’ incarceration with 5 years and 12 months suspended. On appeal, Best argues

              that the circuit court erred by imposing a three-year sentence for his breaking and entering

              conviction despite his sentencing mitigation evidence. 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.” Therefore, we dispense with oral argument in accordance with Code

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

                     *
                      Retired Judge Frank took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant
              to Code § 17.1-400(D).
                     **
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                                          BACKGROUND1

        On September 14, 2022, Best pleaded guilty to breaking and entering at night and petit

larceny, without a written agreement with the Commonwealth. Before accepting Best’s pleas, the

circuit court conducted a colloquy with him to ensure he was entering his pleas freely and

voluntarily. During the colloquy, Best confirmed that he understood he was facing a maximum

sentence of 20 years and 12 months.

        The parties stipulated that the Commonwealth’s evidence would show that on June 21,

2021, Laura Church and Matthew Minks returned to their home on Kimberly Avenue and found

their back door kicked in. They noticed some of their property was missing, namely a Fossil

wristwatch, an LG cell phone, a set of earbuds, and a folder containing personal information. Their

surveillance camera captured footage of the break-in, including audio of voices calling each other

by name and indicating “where to go and what to look for in the residence.” Law enforcement

identified Best as one of the intruders. After accepting his pleas and finding him guilty, the circuit

court ordered a presentence report and continued the matter for sentencing.

        At his sentencing hearing, Best provided the circuit court with relevant mitigation evidence

in the form of proffered testimony and an allocution. According to Best, he suffered the loss of his

mother soon after beginning his last term of incarceration, and was unable to properly mourn until

after his release. He informed the circuit court that he had promised his children he would no longer

get into trouble and upon his release began to take steps to ensure this. Specifically, Best sought out

business partners, planned to obtain his commercial driver’s license, and began treatment for his

        1
         On appeal, we recite the facts “in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the
prevailing party in the trial court.” Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 231 (2022)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). Doing so requires us to “discard the
evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the
credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)).
                                                -2-
mental health conditions and trauma. Despite his efforts, Best reported that the COVID-19

pandemic negatively impacted his progress. He saw “little to no income” as his business suffered,

and he began to abuse alcohol and the medications prescribed for his mental health treatment. Best

informed the circuit court that he initially came to the City of Danville with good intentions, but

soon found himself committing these property crimes with other drug users. He apologized to the

victims of his crimes and the City of Danville and promised to pay restitution in full. Best asked the

circuit court to find that he accepted responsibility and to adjust his discretionary sentencing

guidelines accordingly. Ultimately, Best requested a sentence at the low end of the adjusted

guidelines. The Commonwealth made no argument and submitted the matter to the circuit court.

         The circuit court informed Best that it “appreciated his statement,” found that Best had

accepted responsibility, and made the requested adjustment to his sentencing guidelines.2 The

circuit court then sentenced Best to 8 years and 12 months’ incarceration, and suspended all but 3

years.

                                              ANALYSIS

         “We review the trial court’s sentence for abuse of discretion.” Scott v. Commonwealth, 58

Va. App. 35, 46 (2011). “[W]hen a statute prescribes a maximum imprisonment penalty and the

sentence does not exceed that maximum, the sentence will not be overturned as being an abuse of

discretion.” Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564 (2016) (quoting Alston v.

Commonwealth, 274 Va. 759, 771-72 (2007)). “Criminal sentencing decisions are among the most

difficult judgment calls trial judges face.” Id. at 563. “Because this task is so difficult, it must rest

heavily on judges closest to the facts of the case—those hearing and seeing the witnesses, taking

         2
         The discretionary sentencing guidelines recommended an active sentence between three
years and eight months and six years and seven months, with a midpoint of four years and six
months. The guidelines also included a modified recommendation based on Best’s acceptance of
responsibility that reflected an adjusted range between one year, ten months, and two days, and
six years and seven months.
                                                -3-
into account their verbal and nonverbal communications, and placing all of it in the context of the

entire case.” Id. Best argues that the circuit court abused its broad sentencing discretion by not

considering the mitigating evidence he presented, or in the alternative, that it improperly ascribed

insufficient weight to the mitigating evidence. The record, however, does not support Best’s

argument.

          In support of his claim, Best cites only the length of his sentence. But a thorough review of

the record shows that the circuit court heard Best’s mitigation evidence and fashioned his sentence

accordingly. The circuit court ordered a parenting class as a condition of Best’s suspended

sentences, indicating that it heard Best’s evidence about his children. The circuit court also ordered

that he receive counseling for his mental health, showing that it considered Best’s testimony about

his mental health issues. Further, the circuit court granted Best’s request to adjust the discretionary

sentencing guidelines in light of his acceptance of responsibility. It was within the circuit court’s

purview to weigh Best’s mitigating evidence. Keselica v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31, 36

(2000).

          Balanced against those mitigating circumstances, however, was the seriousness of the crime.

After considering all the circumstances, the circuit court imposed the sentence it deemed

appropriate. It was not required to explain its sentence or the weight it assigned to the aggravating

and mitigating circumstances. “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). Thus, the record does not support Best’s

claim that the circuit court erred in weighing his mitigating factors.

          “[O]nce it is determined that a sentence is within the limitations set forth in the statute under

which it is imposed, appellate review is at an end.” Thomason v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 89,

99 (2018) (quoting Minh Duy Du, 292 Va. at 565). Best’s sentences were within the sentencing

                                                    -4-
ranges set by the legislature. See Code §§ 18.2-10, -11, -89, and -96. Accordingly, “our task is

complete.” Thomason, 69 Va. App. at 99.

                                          CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s imposition

of sentence and affirm its judgment.

                                                                                             Affirmed.

                                                -5-