Justin Alan Farmer v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2023 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Beales, Huff and Chaney
UNPUBLISHED
JUSTIN ALAN FARMER
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0904-22-1 PER CURIAM
AUGUST 1, 2023
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
James C. Lewis, Judge
(Michael A. Castillon, Assistant Public Defender, on brief), for
appellant.
(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; David A. Mick, Assistant
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Justin Alan Farmer appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia
Beach revoking a portion of his previously suspended sentences. Farmer contends that “[t]he trial
court erred and abused its discretion in revoking two (2) years of the previously suspended felony
sentence and revoking twenty-four (24) months and three hundred and twenty-four (324) days of the
previously suspended misdemeanor sentences.” Farmer states this is error “because the court failed
to give appropriate weight to mitigating circumstances in the case.” After examining the briefs and
record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the
dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided, and the appellant has not argued that
the case law should be overturned, extended, modified, or reversed.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(b);
Rule 5A:27(b). Consequently, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
BACKGROUND
“In revocation appeals, the trial court’s ‘findings of fact and judgment will not be reversed
unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion.’” Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App.
529, 535 (2013) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 81, 86 (1991)). “The evidence is
considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party below.” Id.On January 28, 2020, Farmer was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of assault and
battery of his wife, Melissa Farmer, and one count of violating a protective order in the Virginia
Beach Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (“JDR court”). The JDR court sentenced
Farmer to twelve months of incarceration on each count, credited him for time served on the count
of violating a protective order, and suspended the remaining sentences conditioned on twelve
months of good behavior.
Less than twelve months later, on January 25, 2021, Farmer assaulted Melissa again in the
presence of her four-year-old daughter and eleven-year-old, non-verbal, autistic son. Farmer’s
punches left bruises on Melissa’s face and hands as she attempted to block the blows. She also
suffered a concussion and contusion to the back of her head. During the assault, Farmer threatened
to “splatter [Melissa’s] brains and [her] son across the room.”
Farmer was arrested and, in January 2022, convicted of assault and battery of a family
member, third or subsequent offense, and violation of a protective order while armed with a deadly
weapon.1 The trial court sentenced Farmer to ten years of imprisonment with eight years
suspended, conditioned upon ten years of good behavior and indefinite supervised probation. In
addition, as a condition of his suspended sentences, the trial court specifically ordered that Farmer
have “no contact with” Melissa. Nevertheless, while serving his two-year active sentence for the
1
Additional charges of abduction and unlawful wounding by strangulation were nolle
prossed.
-2-
felony convictions, Farmer sent several letters to Melissa, expressing his love for her and stating that
he did not want to divorce her.
Based on Farmer’s violation of the “no contact” condition of his suspended sentences, the
trial court issued a capias for Farmer’s arrest in March 2022. Moreover, based on his new felony
convictions, the JDR court found that Farmer had violated the conditions of his suspended sentences
for his misdemeanor convictions and revoked the unserved portions of those sentences.2 Farmer
appealed his misdemeanor good behavior violations to the circuit court (referred to herein as the
trial court).
On May 23, 2022, the trial court considered the felony probation violation and Farmer’s
appeal of his misdemeanor good behavior violations. At the outset of the hearing, Farmer stipulated
that he was “in violation for everything.” Melissa testified that she had suffered six years of
domestic abuse, which had “progressively worsened.” Melissa further testified that Farmer told her
that his actions were caused by his Lyme disease, which “made him act crazy.” Melissa
nevertheless wanted to keep her family intact, so they “started trying to work [on] the relationship”
after he was released for his misdemeanor offenses. Farmer was supposed to attend a batterers
intervention course but did not do so.
Melissa testified that Farmer’s abuse had made her claustrophobic, “always looking for a
way out,” and “loud sudden noises [could] cause [her] to jump faster than ever before.” She
attended a recovery group and individual counseling and stressed that she would suffer
psychological effects for the rest of her life. In addition, her son exhibited behavioral issues after
witnessing Farmer’s abuse, including suspension from school, and her daughter “lashed out with
fits.” Melissa testified that Farmer had not resided in their home since the January 2021 assault.
2
The JDR court issued capiases for Farmer’s arrest for the misdemeanor probation
violations on October 22, 2021.
-3-
Melissa testified that while incarcerated, Farmer had attempted to contact her by telephone
and mail in violation of the trial court’s no contact provision. Melissa’s call log demonstrated that
Farmer began calling her a few weeks after the trial court entered the no contact provision, and he
called so frequently that she “block[ed] the jail calls.” Melissa acknowledged that there was no
substance to Farmer’s messages, only a recording of Farmer stating his name. She also
acknowledged that the letters Farmer sent her were not hostile. Nevertheless, she testified that
Farmer was a threat to her, her family, her livelihood, and the community. She feared that Farmer
would kill her for testifying against him once he was released from incarceration and asked the trial
court to help protect her and her family by sentencing Farmer “with time.”
Vanessa Miley, Melissa’s mother, testified that she had watched Melissa withdraw and
“constantly be nervous and fearful” during her relationship with Farmer. Miley stated that Melissa
was “stronger” now, “more like she was prior to” when Melissa and Farmer first met. Melissa and
the children would come to Miley’s home seeking “safety and refuge” from Farmer, but he would
follow, harass, and manipulate Melissa until she returned home. Miley testified Farmer was a
danger to the family and society because he was domineering, controlling, intimidating, and
manipulative. In addition, Farmer was physically strong and trained in martial arts, allowing him to
overpower and harm others. Miley feared that Farmer would kill Melissa if he was released from
incarceration.
After all the evidence had been presented, Farmer asked the trial court to run any active
sentence concurrently with the felony sentence he was currently serving. He asserted that his prior
criminal history consisted of only traffic offenses until 2018. Farmer claimed he was in a “toxic
relationship that went downhill extremely quick.” He acknowledged that the trial court had ordered
him not to contact Melissa but argued that he did not threaten her in the letters and only wanted to
-4-
“make things work.” Finally, Farmer contended that he had completed a mental health evaluation
in 2020 and had set up a batterers intervention course before he was incarcerated.
The Commonwealth asked the trial court to revoke the remaining balance on Farmer’s
misdemeanor convictions and to impose additional incarceration on his felony convictions. The
Commonwealth argued that Melissa had suffered physical, mental, and emotional abuse for six
years. The Commonwealth noted that the trial court had offered Farmer the opportunity to seek
treatment, but Farmer beat Melissa “so bad . . . she thought she was going to die” and threatened to
“bash her brains in” with a hammer. In addition, he contacted Melissa soon after he was
incarcerated despite the trial court’s no contact order. In the Commonwealth’s view, Farmer was
violent and dangerous; he had “blatantly disregarded” the trial court’s order and did not deserve a
concurrent sentence.
After arguments by counsel, the trial court found that Farmer had violated the terms and
conditions of his previously suspended sentences. The trial court found this was one of the “worst”
spousal abuse cases that it had encountered and that Farmer’s “reprehensible conduct . . . should not
be tolerated in this society or any other.” The trial court determined that Farmer had had the
opportunity to “get this thing right,” but he failed to do so. The trial court then revoked Farmer’s
previously suspended misdemeanor sentences in their entirety. In addition, the court revoked and
resuspended all but two years of Farmer’s previously suspended felony sentences. Farmer now
appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Farmer argues that the trial court abused its discretion by “fail[ing] to give
appropriate weight to mitigating circumstances” in this case, including “the lack of hostility” in his
communications with Melissa and his “minimal criminal history.”
-5-
After suspending a sentence, a trial court “may revoke the suspension of sentence for any
cause the court deems sufficient that occurred at any time within the probation period, or within the
period of suspension fixed by the court.” Code § 19.2-306(A). “In revocation appeals, the trial
court’s ‘findings of fact and judgment will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of abuse
of discretion.’” Jacobs, 61 Va. App. at 535 (quoting Davis, 12 Va. App. at 86). “The evidence is
considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party below.” Id.
“If the court, after hearing, finds good cause to believe that the defendant has violated the
terms of suspension, then the court may revoke the suspension and impose a sentence in accordance
with the provisions of § 19.2-306.1.” Code § 19.2-306(C). “The court may again suspend all or
any part of this sentence for a period up to the statutory maximum period for which the defendant
might originally have been sentenced to be imprisoned, less any time already served, and may place
the defendant upon terms and conditions or probation.” Id.
Farmer does not contend that the trial court did not have sufficient cause to revoke his
suspended sentences. Indeed, he admitted that he was “in violation for everything.” In addition,
Farmer acknowledges that he “presented no mitigating evidence” to the trial court. Despite these
facts, Farmer contends that he “argued mitigating factors from the Commonwealth’s evidence” and
that the trial court abused its discretion by failing “to give appropriate weight to the mitigating
circumstances of the case.”
As relevant to Farmer’s claims, Code § 19.2-306.1(B) provides that
[i]f the court finds the basis of a violation of the terms and
conditions of a suspended sentence or probation is that the
defendant was convicted of a criminal offense that was committed
after the date of the suspension, or has violated another condition
other than . . . a technical violation . . . then the court may revoke
the suspension and impose or resuspend any or all of that period
previously suspended.
-6-
The record demonstrates that Farmer suffered new criminal convictions during the suspension
period for his misdemeanor revocation cases. In addition, by contacting Melissa while incarcerated,
he committed a non-technical violation in his felony probation violation cases. Accordingly, it was
within the trial court’s discretion to “revoke the suspension and impose or resuspend any or all” of
the previously suspended sentences. Id.
It was equally within the trial court’s purview to weigh any mitigating factors Farmer
presented, such as his lack of criminal history and the nature of his communications with
Melissa. See Keselica v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31, 36 (2000). Despite Farmer’s
argument to the contrary, the record demonstrates that the trial court considered these factors
before fashioning an appropriate sentence and determined that Farmer had had the opportunity to
“get this thing right,” but he failed to do so. Moreover, balanced against the above mitigating
factors was the severe nature of Farmer’s new offenses. Indeed, the trial court found this was one
of the “worst” spousal abuse cases that it had encountered and that Farmer’s “reprehensible conduct
. . . should not be tolerated in this society or any other.”
“The statutes dealing with probation and suspension are remedial and intended to give the
trial court valuable tools to help rehabilitate an offender through the use of probation, suspension of
all or part of a sentence, and/or restitution payments.” Howell v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 737, 740
(2007). Farmer completely disregarded the conditions of probation and, instead, contacted Melissa
soon after the trial court entered the no contact order. “When coupled with a suspended sentence,
probation represents ‘an act of grace on the part of the Commonwealth to one who has been
convicted and sentenced to a term of confinement.’” Hunter v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 582,
587 (2010) (quoting Price v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 443, 448 (2008)). Farmer failed to make
productive use of the grace that had been extended to him. Accordingly, we hold that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a portion of the previously suspended sentences.
-7-
See Alsberry v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 314, 321-22 (2002) (finding the court did not abuse
its discretion by imposing the defendant’s previously suspended sentence in its entirety “in light
of the grievous nature of [the defendant]’s offenses and his continuing criminal activity”).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
-8-