Karen Chanita Powell v. Commonwealth ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Fitzpatrick and Overton
Argued at Salem, Virginia
KAREN CHANITA POWELL
v. Record No. 1463-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA APRIL 23, 1996
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
John P. Varney (Office of the Public
Defender, on brief), for appellant.
John K. Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Karen Chanita Powell appeals the final orders of the trial
court revoking her suspended sentences. She contends that the
revocation is void because the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. We disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial
court.
On August 5, 1992, Ms. Powell was convicted of two counts of
distribution of cocaine. On each, she was sentenced to six years
imprisonment with three years suspended. As a condition of
suspension, she was placed on three years probation beginning the
date of her release from prison. She was also required to pay
restitution and court costs. She was released from prison in
August, 1993.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Subsequent to her release, Ms. Powell committed and was
convicted of two felony and one misdemeanor bad check charges,
credit card theft, credit card fraud, and unlawful use of a
credit card. On June 19, 1995, the Commonwealth filed a motion
for revocation of Ms. Powell's suspended sentences citing her
1992 convictions and alleging that she had violated the terms of
her probation by suffering new convictions and by failing to pay
her court costs.
At the hearing on June 26, 1995, the Commonwealth called
both 1992 cases by record number, CR92-976 and CR92-977, but the
conviction orders were not introduced into evidence. Ms. Powell
contends that because the conviction orders were not introduced
into evidence, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
to revoke her suspended sentences. We disagree.
"It is beyond question that '[a] court which has ordered a
suspension of sentence undoubtedly has the power to revoke it
when the defendant has failed to comply with the conditions of
the suspension.'" Russnak v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 317, 321,
392 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1990) (citation omitted). The trial court
convicted Ms. Powell and suspended her sentence. It had
authority to revoke that suspension for good cause pursuant to
Code § 19.2-306. The court was not required to reacquire
jurisdiction. The revocation hearing was an extension of the
original proceeding, over which the trial court already had
jurisdiction.
- 2 -
The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -