Brian Craig Henthorne, s/k/a Brian Henthorn, 879 S.E.2d 913

Appellant Brian Craig Henthorne pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor of giving a false identity and received a 180-day jail sentence, all suspended, plus 12 months’ probation.
After release from custody on September 23, 2021, Henthorne failed to report to probation; his officer made multiple contact attempts and sought a show-cause order.
A capias was executed and a revocation hearing was held; Henthorne testified he missed reporting because he was grieving his son’s death.
The Commonwealth and trial court disputed whether Henthorne’s failure to report was a “technical violation” under Code § 19.2-306.1(A)(iii) and whether the statute’s limits on active incarceration applied to misdemeanors.
The trial court found a violation, revoked the suspended 180 days, resuspended 100 days, and ordered 80 days active incarceration.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that failing to report within three days is a statutory technical violation and that a first technical violation bars imposition of active incarceration under § 19.2-306.1.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether failing to report to probation at all satisfies § 19.2-306.1(A)(iii)’s "report within three days of release" technical-violation clause	§ 19.2-306.1(A)(iii) unambiguously makes failure to report within three days a technical violation; no requirement that probationer later report	Clause applies only where probationer did report but missed the three-day window; statute does not cover never reporting	Court held plain text covers failure to report at all; this was a first technical violation and barred active incarceration
Whether § 19.2-306.1’s limitations apply to misdemeanor revocations as well as felonies	Statute’s language is not limited to felonies; applies to suspended sentences generally	Trial court questioned whether the 14-day restriction applied to misdemeanors	Court implicitly held the statute applies to misdemeanors and is not limited to felonies

Taylor v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 336 (2020) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Jordan v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 70 (2018) (courts are bound by the General Assembly’s chosen words)
Young v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 528 (2007) (courts may not add language to statutes)
Commonwealth v. Amos, 287 Va. 301 (2014) (court cannot impose additional statutory requirements not expressed by legislature)
Woods v. Mendez, 265 Va. 68 (2003) (plain statutory language controls; courts cannot effectively add words)
Green v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 69 (2022) (2021 amendment limits period of active incarceration after revocation)
Hampton Roads Sanitation Dist. Comm’n v. City of Chesapeake, 218 Va. 696 (1978) (courts should construe law as written)
Mouberry v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 576 (2003) (policy or wisdom of legislation is for legislature, not courts)