Williams v. Com.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 042647. |
| Citation | 621 S.E.2d 98 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | James Howard WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Elizabeth P. Murtagh, Senior Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert H. Anderson, III, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. (Judith Williams Jagdmann, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Present: HASSELL, C.J., LACY, KOONTZ, KINSER, LEMONS, and AGEE, JJ., and CARRICO, Senior Justice.
This appeal involves the application of Code § 19.2-295.2, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
A. At the time the court imposes sentence upon a conviction for any felony offense . . . the court . . . shall, in addition to any other punishment imposed if such other punishment includes an active term of incarceration in a state or local correctional facility, . . . impose a term of postrelease supervision of not less than six months nor more than three years, as the court may determine. Such additional term shall be suspended and the defendant placed under postrelease supervision upon release from the active term of incarceration.
B. The period of postrelease supervision shall be under the supervision and review of the Virginia Parole Board.[1]
The defendant, James Howard Williams, was indicted for the possession or transportation of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. The defendant was also indicted for knowingly buying, receiving, or aiding in concealing a stolen firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-108.1. A jury convicted the defendant of both offenses and fixed his punishment at five years' imprisonment on the first charge and two and one-half years on the second charge.
The trial court imposed the sentences fixed by the jury and in addition imposed upon him a three-year term of postrelease supervision. The court suspended the three-year sentence of postrelease supervision upon condition that the defendant "shall be of good behavior for ten (10) years commencing upon his release from confinement." The trial court placed the defendant on probation "under the supervision of a Probation Officer" for three years upon his release from confinement.2
The defendant appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals. He argued there that the total sentence imposed, including the term of postrelease supervision, exceeded the maximum punishment the law permitted for two Class 6 felonies and that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing such a sentence.
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding that the sentences imposed by the trial court, including the three-year term of postrelease supervision, "were within the ranges set by the legislature" and, accordingly, that "the [trial] court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing [the defendant]." The Court of Appeals denied the defendant's petition for appeal by an unpublished per curiam opinion, and we awarded him this appeal. In the sole assignment of error before this Court, the defendant contends that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in finding that his sentences were valid.
The Court of Appeals also noted the defendant made two other claims, viz., that "Code § 19.2-295.2 is ambiguously worded and that his sentence violated his constitutional rights." The Court of Appeals held that the defendant "did not raise these claims in the trial court" and, accordingly, that Rule 5A:18 barred "consideration of these questions on appeal."
The defendant makes these same two claims in this Court. However, he has not assigned error to the Court of Appeals' holding that consideration of the two claims was barred by Rule 5A:18. In the absence of such an assignment of error, consideration of these two claims is also barred here. Rule 5:17(c).3
Accordingly, we will consider only the defendant's contention that his sentences, including the term of postrelease supervision, exceeded the maximum punishment permitted for two Class 6 felonies and constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The defendant points out that each of the two felonies with which he was charged carried a maximum sentence of five years, for a total of ten years. The defendant then argues that when the three-year term of postrelease supervision imposed by the trial court is added to the seven-and-one-half-year terms fixed by the jury, his sentences total ten and one-half years, exceeding by six months the maximum ten-year term the defendant says is allowed for two Class 6 felonies, resulting in an illegal sentence.
We disagree with the defendant. He would have us ignore the three-year term of postrelease supervision when computing the length of the term permitted for two Class 6 felonies, resulting in a permitted term of only ten years, but count the three-year term when calculating the total length of punishment imposed, resulting in a term of ten and one-half years, six months in excess of the permitted sentences.
This would be a misapplication of Code § 19.2-295.2. Under a proper application of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholson v. Commonwealth
...— cannot be challenged collectively as an abuse of discretion any more than they could individually. See Williams v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 580, 584, 621 S.E.2d 98, 100 (2005) (calculating "the length of a permitted sentence" on multiple convictions by summing the maximum five-year terms tha......
-
Hernandez v. Com.
...Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 115, 123, 637 S.E.2d 344, 348 (2006), aff'd, 274 Va. 759, 652 S.E.2d 456 (2007). See also Williams v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 580, 621 S.E.2d 98 (2005). Thus, the power to impose the post-release period arises from the legislature, not from any inherent power of a cou......
-
Alston v. Com., Record No. 0951-05-2.
...in addition to the sentence imposed by a jury, based on the provisions of Code § 19.2-295.2. Williams v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 580, 583 n. 3, 584, 621 S.E.2d 98, 100 & n. 3 (2005).2 In United States v. Liero, 298 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.2002), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the ess......
-
Du v. Commonwealth
...385, 484 S.E.2d 898, 906 (1997) )); Noll v. Rahal , 219 Va. 795, 801, 250 S.E.2d 741, 745 (1979).5 See also Williams v. Commonwealth , 270 Va. 580, 584, 621 S.E.2d 98, 100 (2005) ; Perry v. Commonwealth , 208 Va. 283, 289, 156 S.E.2d 566, 571 (1967). Criminal convictions, however, still rem......