Suspended sentence was correctly revoked

Appellant’s argument that the circuit court abused its discretion by imposing four months of her 10-year suspended sentence lacks merit.

Discussion

“Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked her previously suspended sentence and imposed an active sentence of four months. …

“Appellant acknowledges that the trial court had the authority to revoke her suspended sentence for failure to comply with the terms of probation. Nevertheless, appellant maintains that the trial court’s sentence was ‘excessively harsh’ and ‘unwarranted under the totality of the circumstances.’

“Appellant argues that although she ‘undoubtedly violated the conditions of her probation by failing to maintain contact with her probation officer, [she] didn’t simply disappear and live life on the lam.’

“Appellant notes that she had ‘maintained employment …, supported her four young children as a single parent, and did not incur any new criminal charges, aside from the probation violation charge.’…

“By continuing to disregard the terms of her suspended sentence, appellant demonstrated that she was not amenable to rehabilitation. … The record establishes that the trial court had sufficient cause to revoke appellant’s suspended sentence. Accordingly, we hold that the sentence the trial court imposed represents a proper exercise of discretion.”

Affirmed.

Williams v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0869-21-1, May 17, 2022. CAV (per curiam) from the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News (Sugg). Scott Michael Ehrenworth,(on brief), for appellant. Jason S. Miyares, Justin B. Hill (on brief) for appellee, VLW 022-7-139, 5 pp. Unpublished opinion.