THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY Michael E. Levy, Judge
Dadswell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
A. Curry, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Humphreys and Russell
Argued at Leesburg, Virginia
GRAFF DECKER CHIEF JUDGE
Juarez Jenkins appeals a ruling of the circuit court revoking
his suspended sentence for two theft offenses. He contends that
the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting
testimonial hearsay contained in a report. We hold that the
court's admission of the report for sentencing purposes
in the instant proceeding was not error. Consequently, we
affirm the revocation of the suspended portion of the
appellant was convicted in 2003 for obtaining money by false
pretenses and uttering a forged check, in violation of Code
§§ 18.2-172 and -178. He was sentenced to a total
of twenty years in prison with fourteen years suspended. The
suspension was conditioned, among other things, on twenty
years of good behavior and an indefinite period of supervised
probation. In 2010, 2014, and 2018, the appellant was found
to have violated the terms and conditions of his suspended
sentence. It is from the 2018 violation that he appeals, and
he challenges the admission of evidence from the 2010
proceeding in the 2018 revocation hearing.
2010 Revocation Proceeding
2009 letter, Susan Sokol, a senior probation officer for
District 21 in Fredericksburg, notified the
Commonwealth's Attorney that she sought the issuance of a
show cause order against the appellant for violating his
probation. In her 2009 letter and a 2010 addendum
(collectively the 2010 report), Sokol notified the court that
the appellant violated his probation in three different ways.
the appellant tested positive for cocaine use in April 2009,
and he admitted having used the drug four days earlier.
Second, the appellant absconded from supervision. Sokol
reported that after his April 2009 visit to the District 21
probation office, she worked with District 32 to make a home
contact at the address that the appellant had provided for
himself in Henrico County. Sokol detailed some of the
specific efforts that she personally took to try to reach
him, as well as "notice" provided by District 32
"that they attempted a home contact" in July 2009
and were told by the appellant's aunt that he no longer
lived there. Sokol then checked the local hospital, as well
as the Virginia jails, and determined that his
"whereabouts [were] unknown." Sokol concluded that
the appellant had violated the condition of his suspended
sentence that he could "not abscond from
supervision" and would be "considered an absconder
when [his] whereabouts [were] no longer known to [his]
supervising officer." Third, Sokol related that the
appellant had been arrested on new misdemeanor charges. The
existence of these new charges was confirmed by the
appellant's criminal history record.
2010 revocation proceeding, the appellant "pleaded
guilty" to "having violated the terms and
conditions of . . . [the] suspension." The court
accepted the appellant's acknowledgment of guilt. After
receiving evidence and hearing argument, it revoked his
previously suspended fourteen-year sentence and resuspended
thirteen years, giving him a year to serve.
2014 Revocation Proceeding
2014, the court held a second revocation proceeding based on
a new violation. After hearing evidence and argument, the
court found that the appellant had again violated the terms
of his suspended sentence. It revoked his previously
suspended thirteen-year sentence, imposed one year, and
resuspended the remaining twelve years.
2018 Revocation Proceeding
court held a third revocation hearing in 2018. The appellant
"conced[ed] the violation," and the court accepted
his "plea." The prosecutor then offered,
specifically as "evidence . . . on the issue of
sentence," the appellant's criminal history
report and his 2010 probation violation report. (Emphasis added).
The appellant objected to the admission of the report on
testimonial hearsay grounds. He also argued that considering
the 2010 report again in the 2018 proceeding ...