Where the circuit court entered a written conviction order after finding appellant guilty of grand larceny and possessing burglary tools, the court erred by later determining that he was entitled to a deferred disposition under Starrs v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 1 (2014).
We affirm, however under the “right result, wrong reason” doctrine because the court never ordered a deferred disposition.
Overview
Appellant was caught stealing four expensive shirts, which he stuffed into a “waist trainer,” a corset-type device he wore under his sweater and shirt.
A written conviction order was entered after a bench trial on charges of grand larceny and possession of burglary tools. The court sentenced appellant to 180 days for each conviction and suspended both sentences for one year while appellant served a year of probation.
“The circuit court entered a sentencing order on May 9, 2018, and contemporaneously entered another order suspending entry of the sentencing order for ninety days because ‘current counsel in the Office of the Public Defender was not the Defendant’s counsel for the trial and sentencing and needs additional time to ensure all appropriate post-trial motions have been filed prior to noting the Defendant’s appeal.’
“This order had no mention of, or effect on, the circuit court’s finding of guilt on the record at the conclusion of trial or the existing final conviction order.”
Appellant then moved for a deferred disposition under Starrs, arguing that although he had been found guilty, sentencing had been continued for 90 days. The commonwealth replied that the court’s finding of guilt foreclosed any delayed disposition.
The court ruled that had the authority to make a delayed disposition but declined to do so.
No delay
“Although the sentencing order was stayed for ninety days to permit newly-appointed counsel to file any post-trial motions, the final conviction order was not stayed. In both the conviction order and the transcript, there was clearly a final, formal adjudication of guilt. As such, the circuit court had no authority to defer disposition pursuant to Starrs at the time of the hearing where it so held.
“Although the circuit court erred in finding that it could have deferred disposition pursuant to Starrs, it ultimately did not do so.” Under the “right result, wrong reason” doctrine, there was no “reversable error” in this case because the court did not order a delayed disposition.
Affirmed.
Edwards v. Commonwealth, Record No. 15419-18-4, Jan. 14, 2020. CAV (Atlee) from Fairfax Cir. Ct. (Bellows). Negin Farahmand Yeganeh for appellant, Mark R. Herring for appellee. VLW 020-7-010, 5 pp. Unpublished.