A Virginia man’s challenge to the revocation of his suspended sentence has been rejected by the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Ronald Lee Manley argued that the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing 2 years and 16 days of active incarceration and that his subsequent indefinite term of supervised probation illegally exceeded the five-year maximum allowed by state law. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the active sentence but ruled that Manley forfeited his right to challenge the probation term length because he failed to object in the trial court.
Long History of Violations Leads to Imprisonment
The case stems from a string of probation violations dating back to 2013. Manley initially received a ten-year suspended sentence for robbery following an *Alford* plea in the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake. This original sentence included a key term: supervised probation for an “indeterminate period” starting upon his release.
Manley’s probation quickly ran into trouble. By 2018, he had violated curfew, failed to secure required services, and tested positive for marijuana. Later that year, he was convicted of a new felony: receiving stolen goods. The circuit court responded by revoking part of his suspension but resuspending most of the time, keeping the original, stringent conditions intact.
More violations followed, including a new assault charge in 2021 and subsequent conviction for assault and battery of a family member, along with allegations of contacting gang members on social media. After these events, the court revoked most of the remaining suspended time, leaving only 14 days of active incarceration in 2022.
The final violation leading to the current appeal occurred after Manley was released in July 2022. His probation officer reported in February 2023 that Manley had failed to maintain contact, missed scheduled appointments, and could not be located until his arrest in August 2023.
At the September 2023 hearing, Manley stipulated to the latest violation. While the Commonwealth recommended a sentence between one and four years of active time based on sentencing guidelines, Manley asked for only one year, citing his youth (23 at the time) and the strict “gang conditions” of his probation.
The circuit court ultimately revoked the remaining suspended sentence and imposed 2 years and 16 days of active incarceration, followed by a new indefinite term of supervised probation under the same prior conditions.
Active Sentence Upheld: Discretion Not Abused
Manley first argued that the 2 years and 16 days of active time was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Appellate courts generally grant significant deference to a trial court’s sentencing decisions in probation revocation hearings. To succeed, Manley needed to show that reasonable jurists could not differ on the outcome.
The Court of Appeals noted that trial courts are not required to give controlling weight to mitigating factors, such as the defendant’s youth or difficult background. The court found that the circuit judge had listened to all arguments and weighed Manley’s circumstances against his repeated failures to adhere to the terms of the probation previously granted as an “act of grace.” Because the imposed sentence fell within the recommended sentencing guidelines, the appellate court concluded that the circuit court’s decision was a proper exercise of its discretion and affirmed this part of the judgment.
Probation Length Challenge Barred by Procedural Rule
Manley’s second argument focused on the Virginia Code § 19.2-303, which states that any period of supervised probation shall not exceed five years from the defendant’s release from active incarceration. He argued that imposing an *indefinite* term was a direct violation of this statutory maximum.
However, the Court of Appeals determined that Manley could not raise this issue on appeal because he failed to object specifically and timely during the September 2023 sentencing hearing. Under Virginia Rule 5A:18, objections must be stated with reasonable certainty so the trial judge has a chance to correct the error. Manley had requested a *definite* term but did not argue that the indefinite term violated the five-year statutory maximum.
Manley attempted to circumvent this procedural bar by claiming the sentencing order was “void *ab initio*” (void from the beginning), an error that can be raised at any time. The court decisively rejected this claim, referencing recent precedent.
The Court explained the difference: an order is void *ab initio* only if there is a fundamental infirmity, such as a lack of jurisdiction or fraud. An error in applying a statute, like imposing a probation term that exceeds a statutory limit, makes the order merely “voidable,” not void from the start.
Citing recent rulings, including *Hannah v. Commonwealth* and *Cisneros v. Commonwealth*, the Court confirmed that the circuit court retains general jurisdiction over criminal matters and revocation proceedings. A misapplication of probation length statutes (like § 19.2-303) is considered an error in the exercise of authority, making the resulting order voidable. Since the error was voidable, it had to be preserved by objection in the trial court. Because Manley did not preserve the issue, the appellate court would not consider it.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake.