Baldwin v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 17 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 0740-17-4 |
| Citation | 815 S.E.2d 809,69 Va.App. 75 |
| Parties | Roland BALDWIN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Melissa Hasanbelliu, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Rachel L. Yates, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Petty, Malveaux and Senior Judge Annunziata
OPINION BY JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY
Roland Baldwin pled guilty to one count of sending a written threat to kill or do bodily injury in violation of Code § 18.2-60. On appeal, Baldwin argues that the trial court allowed, and considered, improper testimony at sentencing and in the victim impact statement before giving Baldwin the maximum sentence permitted by statute. Finding no error, we affirm.
Baldwin was convicted in 2012 for making a written threat to kill or do bodily injury to M.T.; he was sentenced to five years, with four years suspended. Approximately two months after his release, Baldwin’s four-year suspended sentence was revoked when he violated his probation by violating a protective order.1 The protective order prohibited contact with M.T., the victim of the written threats for which Baldwin was convicted. Baldwin violated the protective order by waiting near an organization he knew M.T. visited often (the Center). When he began walking toward M.T.’s van, approaching to within one hundred feet, several people from the Center helped M.T. escape.
After Baldwin’s suspended sentence had been revoked, Baldwin wrote new letters which contained threats against M.T., her daughter, and the Center. Baldwin’s letters included the following excerpts:2
In 2016, when Baldwin finished serving his sentence for the 2012 threat, but before he was released, he was arrested and charged with making a written threat to kill or do bodily harm against M.T. through the letters referenced above. Baldwin pled guilty to the charge, and he does not challenge his conviction on appeal. He challenges the trial court’s consideration, during the sentencing phase of his trial, of M.T.’s statements regarding Baldwin’s first conviction for making written threats to her.
According to M.T.’s victim impact statement and testimony, she met Baldwin at the Center and had dated him a few times. The Center is a gathering place for vulnerable and homeless individuals, and M.T. often took her severely handicapped daughter there. It provided her and her daughter a support network. M.T. ended the relationship with Baldwin when he began sending her threatening text messages. She stated that Baldwin "ended up sending twenty-five explicit death threats describing how he was going to brutally kill [M.T.], [her] severely handicapped daughter, [her] sister and others to punish [M.T.] for ending contact and ignoring his pleas to give him a 2nd chance." According to M.T., Baldwin described how he "staked out" the Center every day, watching for her van. He said he would have a gun so he could murder her, her daughter, and anyone from the Center who interfered. M.T. explained that on her first visit to the Center after Baldwin was released in 2012, Baldwin was waiting across the street from the Center just as he had described. When he saw her van, he began walking towards her and got within one hundred feet, in violation of the protective order to stay at least one thousand feet away. It terrified M.T. that even after a year of incarceration, Baldwin was stalking her in the manner he had described in his threats.
In his subsequent threats, Baldwin blamed M.T. for reporting his violation of the protective order. M.T. explained that she found the later threats more terrifying than the first ones because prior to his arrest Baldwin only knew M.T.’s first name, and Baldwin said he was "hunting" her. M.T. hoped she could hide. However, when M.T. reported Baldwin’s violation of the protective order, Baldwin received through case documents M.T.’s personal contact and identification information. Baldwin then sent letters to M.T.’s sister’s home enumerating personal details about M.T. that he had uncovered, including M.T.’s prior residences, her work resume, her parents' names and address, where she has her car repaired, where she vacations, and even the hospital in which M.T. gave birth to her now-adult daughter. Additionally, Baldwin wrote in one letter details of how he would use the newly acquired information to track her down and harm her and her family. M.T. wrote in her victim impact statement that one of Baldwin’s statements at issue in this offense, , was more terrifying "in light of his long history of death threats written with similar wording; it’s horribly clear to us what he means."
M.T. explained that because of the history of escalating threats from Baldwin, she was compelled to take painful measures to protect others. She left a job she loved at a preschool in order to protect the children from potential harm. She stopped volunteering at the Center in order to protect the people there, which was a painful emotional loss to her. M.T. was terrified because "in spite of his felony conviction for [prior] death threats, [Baldwin] has continued to send similar unwanted letters and threats throughout his incarceration featuring many of these alarming themes."
Baldwin pled guilty to writing the threats. Baldwin objected to the victim impact statement submitted by M.T., and her testimony at sentencing, arguing that her reference to the substance and effect of prior threats to M.T., for which he had previously been convicted, were not admissible testimony under the Crime Victim and Witness Rights Act.
On appeal, we review de novo the application of statutory provisions.
Harvey v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 280, 283, 777 S.E.2d 231, 233 (2015). "We apply the plain meaning of the language appearing in the statute unless it is ambiguous or applying the plain language leads to an absurd result." Id. at 285, 777 S.E.2d at 234 (quoting Commonwealth v. Amos, 287 Va. 301, 305-06, 754 S.E.2d 304, 306-07 (2014) ). Additionally, we recognize that "[c]ircuit court judges are vested with broad discretion in admitting evidence, and can be expected to exercise that discretion to exclude evidence that does not aid the court in the sentencing phase." Id. at 286-87, 777 S.E.2d at 235 (internal citation omitted). "Such weighing is left to the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent an abuse of discretion." Id. at 287, 777 S.E.2d at 235 (quoting Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458, 482, 643 S.E.2d 708, 723 (2007) ).
"In 1995, in recognition of the concern for the victims and witnesses of crime, the General Assembly enacted the Crime Victim and Witness Rights Act, Code §§ 19.2-11.01 -11.4." Rock v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 254, 258, 610 S.E.2d 314, 315 (2005). The purpose of the Act is "to ensure that the full impact of crime is brought to the attention of the courts of the Commonwealth; that crime victims and witnesses are treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity; and that their privacy is protected to the extent permissible under law." Id. at 258, 610 S.E.2d at 315-16 (quoting Code § 19.2-11.01(A) ). Under the Act, a victim must be given the opportunity "to prepare a written victim impact statement prior to sentencing of a defendant...." Code § 19.2-11.01(4). "If prepared by someone other than the victim," the victim impact statement shall include six factors.3 Code § 19.2-299.1. If the victim testifies in court to the impact of the crime, "[t]he court shall limit the victim’s testimony to the [six] factors set forth in clauses (i) through (vi) of subsection A of § 19.2-299.1." Code § 19.2-295.3.
While providing for victim impact testimony, " Code §§ 19.2-295.3 and 19.2-11.01(B) do not limit the admission of [other] relevant evidence." Rock, 45 Va. App. at 263, 610 S.E.2d at 318.
Both Code § 19.2-295.3 and the factors it references from Code § 19.2-299.1 expressly apply to victim impact testimony. They do not, by their text or by implication, preclude a trial court from considering testimony from a victim at the sentencing hearing about the underlying facts of the crime, provided that the trial judge concludes, within his broad discretion, that such evidence would help the court fashion an appropriate sentence.
Harvey, 65 Va. App. at 285-86, 777 S.E.2d at 234. Moreover, "[t]he court must take into account a wide range of information, including the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meekins v. Commonwealth
...her release.ANALYSIS We review a court’s decision to admit evidence at sentencing for an abuse of discretion. Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 75, 82, 815 S.E.2d 809 (2018). "Circuit court judges are vested with broad discretion in admitting evidence and can be expected to exercise that......
-
Laney v. Commonwealth
...S.E.2d 231 (2015). Issues of statutory interpretation are questions of law that this Court reviews de novo. Baldwin v. Commonwealth , 69 Va. App. 75, 81, 815 S.E.2d 809 (2018).The Crime Victim and Witness Rights Act gives certain statutorily defined victims the right to, among other things,......
- Cabral v. Commonwealth
-
Re v. Chastain
...which is to ensure that the victim has the opportunity to convey to the court the full impact of the crime." Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 75, 89, 815 S.E.2d 809, 816 (2018). Similarly, here, the dismissal of this case under these circumstances would be the "antithesis" of the goal o......