Suspended sentence properly revoked

After appellant violated the terms of his probation several times, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking his suspended sentences.

Arguments on appeal

“Appellant, through counsel, contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it upwardly departed from the guidelines and revoked the entirety of the remaining suspended time. He argues that the court’s failure to utilize the sentencing guidelines as a tool in affixing the appropriate punishment was an abuse of discretion.

“He further argues that the trial court should have explained the role the prior sentencing order, and two prior revocation orders, played in crafting his sentence. He also contends that the trial court did not consider his mitigating evidence.

“Appellant introduced a Star-Tribune article, which corroborated appellant’s assertion at the revocation hearing that he was abducted and beaten in October 2021 during the period he was accused of absconding from supervision.

“Finally, appellant argues that his punishment is disproportionate to the violation alleged.

“Appellant, pro se, alleges that he has not been given credit for the time he was incarcerated before being sentenced on the probation violation subject of this appeal, and on the two prior probation violations from 2018 and 2020.

“Consequently, appellant argues, the trial court ‘abused [its] discretion not only by sentencing [him] over his guidelines, but to time [he] has already served.’ Finally, appellant argues that his trial attorney failed to present mitigating evidence at the revocation hearing.”

Analysis

“While on probation, appellant accumulated ten convictions; two of which were for the same type of offense as the underlying crime appellant was convicted of in this revocation appeal. These transgressions culminated in appellant absconding from probation.

“Appellant’s disregard of the terms of his suspended sentence supports a finding that he was not amenable to rehabilitation. ‘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.’ …

“Appellant failed to make productive use of the grace that had been extended to him and continued to engage in criminal conduct during the suspension period.

“Accordingly, we hold that the sentence the trial court imposed represents a proper exercise of its sentencing discretion. …

“To the extent that appellant argues that his sentence was disproportionate, this Court declines to engage in a proportionality review in cases that do not involve life sentences without the possibility of parole. … Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion with the trial court’s sentencing decision.

“Further, this Court declines to review appellant’s pro se argument that trial counsel was ineffective at the July 9, 2021 revocation hearing. ‘Claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal. …

“Finally, we note that the record does not support appellant’s claim that he was sentenced to time he has already served.”

Affirmed.

Compton v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0798-21-3, April 26, 2022. CAV (per curiam) from the Circuit Court of the City of Danville (Reynolds) Eric T. Cronin for appellant. Jason S. Miyares for appellee. VLW 022-7-110, 8 pp. Unpublished opinion.