Court Opinion

ID: 9367254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 14:11:41.076427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.677800
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Beales, Ortiz and Causey

              RICKY LEE MOTLEY
                                                                               MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.     Record No. 0872-22-3                                           PER CURIAM
                                                                                  JANUARY 31, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
                                              Stacey W. Moreau, Judge

                               (Gregory T. Casker, on brief), for appellant.

                               (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Craig W. Stallard, Senior
                               Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     Ricky Lee Motley appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his previously

              suspended sentences and imposing two years and ten months of active incarceration. He asserts

              that the trial court’s sentencing decision constituted an abuse of discretion because it failed to

              consider his “efforts to maintain a home and his health while suffering from cancer.” After

              examining the briefs and the record in this case, we find that the evidence demonstrates that the

              trial court considered evidence that Motley made efforts to comport with the terms of his

              suspension but ultimately concluded that he violated several of the terms of his suspension

              warranting reinstatement of his sentences. The trial court did not abuse its discretion, and as

              such we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Furthermore, we unanimously hold that oral argument

              is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule

              5A:27(a).

                     *
                         Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
                                        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.

       On November 2, 2011, the trial court convicted Motley of three counts of forgery, three

counts of uttering a forged check, and three counts of petit larceny. The trial court sentenced

him to fifteen years and thirty-six months of incarceration, with all but three years suspended.

Motley was released from incarceration in August 2014 and reported to probation but by March

2015, he had reoffended. In addition, according to his probation and parole officer, Motley “had

absconded from supervision” such that his whereabouts were unknown to his probation officer.

Consequently, the trial court revoked and resuspended a portion of Motley’s sentences. Upon his

release in 2017, Motley was convicted of grand larceny and driving on a revoked license. The

trial court again revoked and resuspended a portion of Motley’s sentences. In January 2021, the

trial court found that Motley had violated his probation by using cocaine. It again revoked his

previously suspended sentences of ten years and forty-four months and resuspended all of his

sentences except the twenty-seven days served.

       On March 23, 2021, Motley returned to supervised probation. Beginning May 2021, his

probation officer could not reach him by phone. In August 2021, Motley missed an appointment

with his probation officer. When his probation officer finally spoke to him in September 2021,

Motley stated that he was on his way to the hospital. Motley’s probation officer instructed him

to call when he was released from the hospital, but Motley never communicated with the

probation office. In October 2021, Motley moved out of his apartment without notifying the

                                               -2-
probation office and did not provide a forwarding address. After his probation officer confirmed

that Motley was not hospitalized, incarcerated, or dead, he filed a major violation report on

November 29, 2021, alleging Motley failed to follow his probation and parole officer’s

instruction (Condition 6), had failed to obtain his probation and parole officer’s permission to

change his residence (Condition 10), and had absconded from supervision such that his

whereabouts were unknown (Condition 11).

       At the revocation hearing, Motley admitted that he had violated the terms of the

suspension and asked that the trial court impose a sentence at the “low end” of the sentencing

guidelines or that he be held locally. Motley admitted that “nothing [had] changed” concerning

his cancer condition since his release in January 2021. He testified that his girlfriend had been

evicted from her apartment, but admitted that he was responsible for staying in touch with his

probation officer. At the conclusion of the evidence, Motley stressed that he was not offering

evidence of his poor health as an “excuse” for his violations, but rather to provide the trial court

with “some background as to . . . his current health.” He noted that before he was hospitalized

he was “doing okay” with reporting.

       The trial court found it “unbelievable” that Motley was before the court for a fourth

probation violation. The court found that Motley moved without permission, absconded, was

untruthful and could not follow instructions. The trial court emphasized that Motley had been

sentenced to time served for his last violation in consideration of his medical issues, despite the

sentencing guidelines recommending up to two years of incarceration. The trial court found that

Motley had not been “following through with probation . . . for years.” The court found Motley

in violation, revoked the balance of his previously suspended sentences, resuspended seven

years, four months, and three days, and imposed two years and ten months of active

incarceration. Motley appeals the revocation of his previously suspended sentences.

                                                -3-
                                            ANALYSIS

       After suspending a sentence, a trial 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).1 Upon “find[ing] good cause

to believe that the defendant has violated the terms of suspension,” the trial court has authority to

“revoke the suspension and impose a sentence in accordance with the provisions of

§ 19.2-306.1.” Code § 19.2-306(C). “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, 61 Va. App. at 535 (quoting Davis, 12 Va. App. at 86).

       Motley does not dispute that the trial court had sufficient cause to find him in violation of

the conditions of his suspended sentences. Instead, he maintains that the sentence the trial court

imposed was excessive because it “ignore[d] [his] efforts and labors to comply with the

conditions of his probation despite being evicted from his place of residence for no fault of his

own and being actively treated for serious physical conditions; namely, cancer, COPD and

asthma.” Motley asserts that the trial court’s sentence failed to consider that he was “trying to

deal with a debilitating and deadly disease.” We find no abuse of the trial court’s sentencing

discretion.

       The record demonstrates that Motley had previously absconded from supervision in 2015.

At his most recent revocation hearing in 2022, the court found Motley violated his probation

again by absconding from supervision for a second time. Under Code § 19.2-306.1(C), a first

technical violation based on Code § 19.2-306.1(A)(x), failing to maintain contact with the

probation officer, shall be considered a second technical violation, and any subsequent technical

       1
          Code § 19.2-306(A) was amended effective July 1, 2021, but Motley does not argue that
the statutory amendment governs his case.
                                            -4-
violation also based on subsection (A)(x) shall be considered a third or subsequent technical

violation. Accordingly, the trial court was entitled to revoke his previously suspended sentences

and to “impose or resuspend any or all of that period previously suspended.” Code

§ 19.2-306.1(B); see also Code § 19.2-306.1(C) (“The court may impose whatever sentence

might have been originally imposed for a third or subsequent technical violation.”). In deciding

what part, if any, of those sentences to resuspend, it was within the trial court’s purview to weigh

any mitigating factors Motley presented, including his poor health. See Keselica v.

Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31, 36 (2000). The record demonstrated that Motley’s adjustment

to supervised probation had been poor. Motley reoffended within months of his most recent

release and, despite receiving lenient treatment on his prior violations, he committed a new

offense, as well as absconding from supervision. When he appeared before the trial court, he had

three prior probation violations.

       “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). Motley’s disregard of the terms of his suspended sentences supports a finding that he was

not amenable to rehabilitation. “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)).

       Motley did not make productive use of the trial’s courts repeated acts of grace; instead, he

continued to commit offenses. “For probation to have a real 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 trial

                                                 -5-
court imposed represented such real consequences and was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

See Alsberry v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 314, 321-22 (2002) (finding the court did not abuse

its discretion by imposing the defendant’s previously suspended sentence in its entirety “in light

of the grievous nature of [the defendant’s] offenses and his continuing criminal activity”).

                                         CONCLUSION

       Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                                          Affirmed.

                                               -6-