In Petersburg case, court clarifies skipping probation counts as ‘absconding’

The Court of Appeals of Virginia has ruled that released prisoners can still be found guilty of violating probation, even if they never set it up in the first place.

The April 28 opinion from a three-judge panel of the court clarifies the definition in Virginia of “absconding” to include a prisoner’s intent to never report for probation, not showing up initially and then skipping out. Because the opinion was classified as “published,” the Court of Appeals thinks the ruling matters beyond the parties involved and can be applied to future probation violation cases.

The ruling affirmed the 2024 decision of a Petersburg Circuit Court judge that Martin Monroe was guilty of absconding from probation he received as part of a 2021 conviction for strangulation. Monroe was sentenced to five years in prison with three years and 10 months suspended provided he adhere to supervised probation.

He was released in 2022, but Monroe was later found to have violated probation after he never showed up for it. After unsuccessful repeated efforts to locate him, authorities determined he had violated the terms of probation, and a warrant for his arrest was issued.

In a 2024 probation revocation hearing, a Petersburg judge declared Monroe guilty of absconding from probation, meaning that he purposedly went into hiding to avoid the probation. According to court records, Monroe never questioned that he violated probation, but he argued he could not be convicted of absconding because he had never started probation in the first place.

The trial judge rejected that argument, revoking the suspended time and then re-suspending all but 14 days. His defense appealed the conviction based on that rejection.

What the appellate court said

In Virginia, absconding is disappearing and cutting off contact when you’re supposed to stay in touch. In probation matters, that means stopping all contact with probation officers and making yourself unreachable.

Writing for the panel, Judge Clifford Athey rejected Monroe’s argument that he should never have been conviction of absconding. The ruling clarifies Virginia law on technical probation violations and affirms that probationers who never report at all can still face penalties for absconding from supervision.

Because Monroe went nearly two years without contacting probation officers and ignored repeated attempts to reach him, the court found sufficient evidence that his whereabouts had become unknown — satisfying the legal definition of absconding.

“The longer one fails to respond to his probation officer’s communications, the more likely one’s whereabouts will be considered ‘no longer known.” Athey wrote. “Given the nearly two-year period of silence on Monroe’s part … we have no difficulty concluding that there was evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion.”

Athey also wrote that accepting Monroe’s argument that he never started could set unfair precedent for future probation violations where officers stay in constant touch with their clients.

“Monroe’s interpretation would place a probationer who contacts his probation officer before absconding in a worse position than a probationer who makes no effort at all,” the opinion read. “Rehabilitation is more readily accomplished when the probationer is under the broad control of the court and the direct supervision of the court’s probation officer.”

Under Virginia law, Monroe still has the right to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Reporting by Bill Atkinson, Petersburg Progress-Index