Summary
The Supreme Court of Virginia held that good behavior is an implicit condition of every suspended sentence, even when a later revocation order does not expressly include that condition. The trial court therefore had authority to revoke and re-suspend Burnham's felony sentence based on new felony convictions occurring within the applicable statutory period. However, the court lacked authority to revoke the misdemeanor suspension because the applicable one-year suspension period had expired.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to revoke and re-suspend Burnham's felony suspended sentence based on new criminal conduct occurring after his discharge from probation but within the applicable statutory period.
- Whether good behavior is an implicit condition of every suspended sentence even when a later revocation order does not expressly restate that condition.
- Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to revoke and re-suspend the misdemeanor sentence when the later revocation order fixed neither a probation period nor a suspension period and the statutory maximum confinement period had expired.
Holdings
- Good behavior is a condition of every suspension of sentence, with or without probation, whether or not the condition is expressly stated in the sentencing or revocation order.
- The trial court had statutory authority to revoke and re-suspend Burnham's suspended felony sentence because the 2009 order fixed neither a probation period nor a suspension period, and the new felony convictions occurred within the maximum ten-year imprisonment period applicable to the felony.
- The trial court lacked authority to revoke and re-suspend the misdemeanor portion of Burnham's sentence because the one-year period of suspension had expired and the statutory maximum twelve-month confinement period had also elapsed.
Key quotations
“good behavior is a condition of every suspension, with or without probation, whether expressly so stated or not.” (at 4)
“We hold that the requirement of good behavior, implicit in every suspended sentence, does not disappear even if an earlier sentencing order contains an express requirement of good behavior and a subsequent order does not expressly carry over the good behavior requirement.” (at 7)
Factual background
Burnham received suspended sentences in 2008 for felony possession of cocaine and misdemeanor driving on a revoked license, with express good-behavior conditions and one year of supervised probation. In 2009, following a probation violation, the trial court revoked and re-suspended the sentences in an order that imposed indefinite supervised probation but did not expressly state a good-behavior condition or fix a suspension period. Burnham was discharged from probation in 2011, then was convicted of two new felonies in January 2015. The trial court subsequently revoked and re-suspended the remaining portions of both sentences.
Procedural history
Burnham was convicted in the Hanover County Circuit Court of felony possession of cocaine and misdemeanor driving on a revoked license. After an earlier probation violation, the court revoked and re-suspended portions of both sentences in a 2009 order that imposed indefinite supervised probation but did not expressly state a good-behavior condition or fix a suspension period. After Burnham was discharged from probation and later incurred new felony convictions, the trial court revoked and re-suspended the remaining suspended sentences. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remanded for entry of a new probation revocation order in conformity with the opinion, including the reversal of the revocation and re-suspension of the misdemeanor sentence.