Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Bumgardner and Humphreys Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

REINADLO D. LEITAO, JR., S/K/A REINALDO LEITAO, JR. v. Record No. 0512-02-4 OPINION BY JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III DECEMBER 17, 2002

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY Jeffrey W. Parker, Judge Seth I. Howard, Assistant Public Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. Amy L. Marshall, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

The trial court found Reinadlo D. Leitao, Jr. in violation of probation for the third time and revoked the balance of his original sentence. to impose. He contends there was no suspended sentence

Concluding the trial court properly imposed the

unserved remainder of the defendant's sentence, we affirm. On July 22, 1996, the trial court convicted the defendant of breaking and entering, grand larceny, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. years in prison. It sentenced him to six

It then ordered him to serve six months in

jail, suspended the balance of five years and six months, and placed the defendant on probation for two years.

On April 11, 1997, the trial court found the defendant violated probation. It revoked the five years and six months

suspended sentence, ordered him to serve 12 months in jail, re-suspended the balance of the sentence, and placed the defendant on probation. On April 15, 1999, the trial court found the defendant violated probation a second time. It revoked the suspended

sentence and probation, ordered him to serve one year of the original sentence, and placed him on probation for two years upon his release. 1 On February 13, 2002, the trial court found the defendant violated probation a third time. It revoked the suspension and

probation and ordered the defendant to serve the balance of the original sentence, three years and six months. The defendant

stipulated he had violated probation for the third time.

1

The 1999 order provides, in pertinent part: the Court Adjudges and Orders that the suspension of the execution of the sentence and the placing of the defendant on probation . . . is hereby revoked . . . . [I]t is accordingly the judgment of this Court that the defendant be sentenced to . . . serve one year of the original sentence . . . [and] be placed back on probation . . . and . . . comply with the original terms of probation.

- 2 -

The defendant contends no suspended sentence remained for the trial court to revoke. He argues the 1999 order revoked his

suspended sentence, sentenced him to serve a portion of it, but failed to re-suspend explicitly the balance of the original sentence. He contends no balance remained suspended for the

trial court to order served. The trial court ruled the 1999 order re-suspended the balance of the defendant's original sentence. It stated: "When

the suspension was revoked, the sentence would have gone into effect automatically. And then . . . the Court placed him back

on probation and [by implication] re-suspended the sentence." We defer to the trial court's interpretation of its own order. Fredericksburg Constr. Co. v. J.W. Wyne Excavating, 260 Va. 137, 144, 530 S.E.2d 148, 152 (2000); Rusty's Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119, 129, 510 S.E.2d 255, 260 (1999). the court has broad discretion, "that discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously." Smoot v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 495, 500, 559 S.E.2d 409, 412 (2002). Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse a While

trial court's revocation of a suspended sentence under Code

Download 0512024.pdf

Virginia Law