Kristen Ann Kent v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2024 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Athey, Ortiz and Chaney
UNPUBLISHED
KRISTEN ANN KENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 1139-23-1 PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 29, 2024
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Tanya Bullock, Judge
(James S. Panagis, Jr.; Wolcott Rivers Gates, on briefs), for
appellant.
(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; S. Hallie Hovey-Murray,
Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Following a deferred disposition under Code § 19.2-298.02, the trial court convicted Kristen
Ann Kent for damaging the property of another with a value of more than $1,000 and stalking
another person in violation of a protective order; the court also found that she violated conditions of
her probation for five prior misdemeanor convictions. For the destruction of property and stalking
convictions, the trial court sentenced Kent to seven years of incarceration with six years and six
months suspended. The trial court revoked Kent’s suspended sentences for the five prior
misdemeanor convictions and resuspended all but six months. Kent contends that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that she violated her probation or the terms of the deferred disposition order.1
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
1
In her assignments of error, Kent also asserts that the trial court erred in “convicting”
her for entering Naval Air Station Oceana and for placing a 911 call. However, the record does
not reflect that Kent sustained a criminal conviction based on such conduct. Because the trial
court did not convict Kent of an independent crime for entering the naval base or placing a call,
we have no ruling to consider as to these assignments of error.
After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is
unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).
BACKGROUND
“This Court reviews the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
prevailing party” below. Carter v. Commonwealth, 79 Va. App. 329, 334 (2023). “We ‘regard
as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that may
reasonably be drawn from that evidence.’” Id. (quoting McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72
Va. App. 513, 516 (2020)).
In July 2022, Kent was indicted for stalking Tyler White in violation of a protective order
and causing damage of $1,000 or more to White’s property. Kent also was charged with assault,
violating a protective order, stalking, eluding the police, destruction of property with a value of
less than $1,000, and petit larceny. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kent pleaded guilty to all the
charges.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, Kent received a deferred disposition on the two
felony charges and jail sentences for the misdemeanors with all time suspended except for a
six-month sentence for assault. The agreement stated, “If the defendant complies with the [terms
and conditions specified], the felonies shall be dismissed upon return to Court in two (2) years.
If the defendant fails to comply with any of the . . . terms, she shall be found guilty of the
felonies and sentenced by the Court following argument by counsel.”
At the guilty plea hearing, the stipulated evidence was that White ended his relationship
with Kent after some social contact with her. Afterward, Kent harassed White by visiting his
home uninvited at various times in the day and night, damaging his car and surveillance
equipment at his home, spray painting graffiti on his garage and front door, and jumping into his
vehicle and refusing to leave. White obtained a protective order prohibiting Kent from
-2-
contacting him. Notwithstanding the protective order, Kent tailgated White, went to his home
and again damaged a surveillance camera, rammed his garage door with her car, and damaged
the vehicle inside. She also eluded the police who tried to stop her as she fled from White’s
home.
After receiving these proffered facts, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and
deferred disposition for the felony charges for two years upon the conditions stated in the plea
agreement. Kent was to be of good behavior, remain on supervised probation for 2 years, pay
restitution to White, and have no contact with White or be within 1,000 yards of his residence or
place of employment. The trial court sentenced Kent in accordance with the plea agreement for
the remaining misdemeanor charges.
On January 11, 2023, the Commonwealth petitioned the trial court to issue a capias for
Kent’s arrest due to her violation of the terms of her deferred disposition and failing to be of
good behavior. The petition alleged that Kent went to White’s place of employment—Naval Air
Station Oceana—on January 3, 2023. She asked his coworkers for his whereabouts and handed
them “civil process . . . related to the restitution” she was ordered to pay him. Kent had been
“administratively separated from the Navy” on November 30, 2022, and she was “debarred from
[entering] all of the Navy installations in the area.” Two days later, Kent called White’s
commanding officer to report a criminal charge that she had brought against White. Then, on
January 6, 2023, Kent called 911 and falsely reported that White was at his home, with a gun,
and was suicidal. The police investigated the report and found it to be false but arrested Kent on
the outstanding capias the trial court issued.
At the March 22, 2023 hearing, White testified that in November 2022 he learned that
Kent had sued him for the restitution she had been ordered to pay him but later dropped her
claim. He also learned through his naval chain of command that Kent threatened to kill him and
-3-
then herself. Kent had White charged with assault and battery in January 2023, but the court
dismissed the charge with prejudice. Kent called White’s workplace several times the week of
January 3, 2023, asking for him and his commanding officer. At the “flight-line gate,” which
was located beyond the main gate of the naval base, Kent presented White’s coworkers with
papers for delivery to him. She also called the naval base and reported that there was a warrant
for White’s arrest. On January 6, 2023, in response to Kent’s 911 call that White was armed and
contemplating suicide, eight police officers appeared at White’s residence.
Kent argued that there was no evidence she violated the terms of her probation or the
deferral order. The trial court found the evidence of Kent’s violations “overwhelming” and
convicted her of the felony offenses. The trial court also revoked Kent’s suspended sentences
and resuspended all but six months. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Kent argues that because the Commonwealth “cannot point to one clause of the plea
agreement that [she] violated,” and she sustained no new criminal convictions, the trial court erred
in finding her in violation of the deferral order and conditions of her suspended sentences. This
Court disagrees.
“Within the bounds prescribed by the General Assembly, trial courts have discretion to
assign terms to a suspended sentence, and in the event of a violation, revoke it.” Hannah v.
Commonwealth, 303 Va. 106, 119 (2024). 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). “A trial court’s decision to
revoke a suspended sentence ‘will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of
discretion.’” Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 79 Va. App. 699, 705 (2024) (quoting Jacobs v.
Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 529, 535 (2013)). “Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can
-4-
we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564
(2016) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009)).
Similarly, “[t]rial courts have authority to defer disposition in criminal cases under
appropriate circumstances.” Vandyke v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 723, 730 (2020). “A deferred
disposition involves placing a defendant on probation under terms and conditions.” Id. Under Code
§ 19.2-298.02(A), a trial court may, with the agreement of the defendant and the Commonwealth,
“defer entry of a conviction order . . . and continue the case for final disposition[] on such
reasonable terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the parties and placed on the record.”
With a deferral under Code § 19.2-298.02(A), “[f]inal disposition may include (a) conviction of the
original charge, (b) conviction of an alternative charge, or (c) dismissal of the proceedings.” “Upon
violation of a term or condition, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt, if not already entered,
and make any final disposition of the case provided by subsection A.” Code § 19.2-298.02(B).
Under the terms of her plea agreement, and as conditions of her probation for the
misdemeanors and deferred disposition for the felonies, the trial court ordered Kent to have no
contact with White and to remain 1,000 feet away from his residence or place of employment.
Kent violated these conditions by attempting contact with White directly and instigating contact
with him through others. She called the base to speak to both White and his supervisor. She
visited White’s workplace several times in January 2023. Kent also spoke to White’s coworkers
and supervisor to claim that he faced a criminal charge which, ultimately, was dismissed. Kent
threatened to kill both White and herself. She also falsely reported to 911 that Kent was armed
and suicidal, causing police officers to descend upon his home.
Under Code §§ 19.2-306 and -298.02, the trial court was authorized to revoke Kent’s
suspended sentences and enter an order of conviction because “the defendant . . . failed to abide
by the conditions imposed by the court.” Nunez v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 152, 161
-5-
(2016). This Court finds no abuse of discretion in the court finding that Kent violated the
conditions of her probation and deferral order, revoking her suspended sentences, convicting her
of the two felony offenses, and sentencing her for the new convictions and the probation
violations.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
-6-