 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gravely v. Commonwealth1/21/2003
Argued at Salem, Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On appeal, Roy Duran Gravely challenges the trial court's finding of a violation of probation and a revocation of his suspended sentence on a conviction for driving under the influence in violation of Code § 18.2-266. Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, we affirm.
I.
On May 15, 2000, the trial court found Gravely guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, his second offense within a five to ten- year period, in violation of Code § 18.2-266. Gravely received a ninety-day jail sentence, all suspended on the condition that he "complete VASAP," maintain "good behavior" for twelve months, and pay court costs and fines. The trial court also suspended Gravely's driver's license for three years, but gave him the opportunity to obtain a restricted operator's license after successful completion of the Virginia Alcohol and Safety Action Program (VASAP).
Gravely entered the VASAP program and received a restricted license to drive only "a motor vehicle that equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock system." The "Conditions of Probation" required Gravely to remain "totally free from alcohol and/or other drugs during all appointments, intervention sessions, or while operating a motor vehicle." (bold and underscore in original). Gravely signed the "Conditions of Probation" form acknowledging that he understood "that violation of any of the above stated conditions of probation will result in the return of my case to court."
Under the trial court's "Ignition Interlock Order," the interlock system would "measure and record the blood alcohol content at each attempted ignition and random rolling retest during operation of the vehicle." The order also required Gravely to provide, on a quarterly basis, a printout indicating his "blood alcohol content during such ignitions, attempted ignitions, and rolling retests, and showing attempts to circumvent or tamper with the equipment." Gravely signed the "Ignition Interlock Order" next to a preprinted sentence reading:
"I have read this Order in its entirety and I understand it completely."
In a letter dated December 12, 2001, VASAP notified the trial court that Gravely had violated the terms of his probation by committing three ignition interlock violations. Each time, Gravely attempted to start the vehicle after registering positive blood alcohol content. VASAP reported that the violations were serious enough to find that Gravely "failed to comply" with the requirements for further "participation" in VASAP, thus prompting the request that he be returned to court for "whatever action deemed appropriate."
At the revocation hearing on February 11, 2002, the trial court found Gravely in violation of the terms of the probation and suspended sentence. The court removed Gravely from the VASAP program and imposed the previously suspended sentence in full. Gravely presented no evidence at the hearing. Gravely filed a motion to reconsider, which the court denied.
II.
After suspending a sentence, a trial court "may revoke the suspension of sentence for any cause the court deems sufficient that occurred at any time within the probation period, or within the period of suspension fixed by the court." Code § 19.2-306(A). In revocation appeals, the trial court's "'findings of fact and judgment will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion.'" Keselica v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31, 35, 537 S.E.2d 611, 613 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 81, 86, 402 S.E.2d 684, 687 (1991)). The revocation authority of a trial court, while broad,
Page 1 2 3 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|