Michael Wilkerson v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Coleman, Annunziata and Bumgardner
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
MICHAEL WILKERSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1287-98-1 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
JUNE 8, 1999
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY
Rodham T. Delk, Jr., Judge
(Robert E. O'Neill; Office of the Public
Defender, on brief), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on brief.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
The trial court revoked three sentences because the
defendant violated the conditions of his probation. It revoked
sentences totaling ten years and two months, ordered the
defendant to serve three years, and re-suspended seven years and
two months. The defendant appeals alleging that the subsequent
offenses were not serious enough to warrant the revocation.
Finding that the defendant did not preserve this argument for
appeal, we affirm the trial court.
While on probation, the defendant was convicted of two
counts of felony petit larceny and one count of assault and
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
battery. He admitted to the trial court that “there is no
question that but revocation of the previous orders of
suspension . . . is appropriate because there is a clear
violation by a Condition 1 violation in these cases.” 1 The
defendant never argued to the trial court that these offenses
were not serious enough to warrant revocation. He only argued
that some of the sentences should be re-suspended.
“The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on
appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998).
Rule 5A:18 requires that objections to a trial court’s action or
ruling be made with specificity in order to preserve an issue
for appeal. See Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480,
405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) (en banc). Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars
our consideration of this question on appeal. Moreover, the
record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or
ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
The trial court “‘undoubtedly has the power to revoke [the
suspension of a sentence] 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)
(quoting Griffin v. Cunningham, 205 Va. 349, 354, 136 S.E.2d
840, 844 (1964)). The only limitation upon revocation by the
1
Condition 1 requires the defendant to “obey all municipal,
state, and federal laws and ordinances.”
- 2 -
trial court is that it be “reasonable.” Marshall v.
Commonwealth, 202 Va. 217, 220, 116 S.E.2d 479, 484 (1960).
The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial
court abused its discretion in revoking the suspended sentences.
It is undisputed that he violated the conditions of the
suspension when he obtained subsequent convictions during the
probationary period. See Coffey v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 760,
762, 167 S.E.2d 343, 345 (1969).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the revocation of the
defendant’s suspended sentences.
Affirmed.
- 3 -