Corey Deshawn Clemons v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1675191

Clemons was convicted (Aug 2016) of grand larceny (count 2) and larceny with intent to sell or distribute (count 3) and received two-year sentences on each count, with all but 90 days suspended.
The original sentencing order suspended the sentences "upon the . . . condition[]" that the "time to serve in count 3 shall run CONCURRENTLY with the time to serve in count 2," i.e., the concurrency related to the active portions.
The court revoked and resuspended parts of the sentences twice (June 2017 and May 2018), each time referencing concurrent service of the active time, and Clemons repeatedly returned to supervised probation.
After a new felony larceny conviction was reported in Sept 2019, Clemons conceded the violation; the court revoked the unserved portions and resuspended all but three months of each sentence but ordered that those imposed portions "shall run consecutively with all other sentences."
Clemons argued the original order required concurrency; the trial court disagreed and Clemons appealed, claiming abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, imposed sentences.

Issue	Clemons' Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the imposed portions of the sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently	The original sentencing order directed the sentences to run concurrently, so the court lacked power to impose consecutive imposed terms	The original order only made the active portions concurrent as a condition of suspension; upon revocation and resuspension the court had discretion to impose different conditions and order consecutive service	The Court affirmed: original order made only the active portions concurrent as a suspension condition; on revocation/resuspension the trial court lawfully imposed consecutive terms and did not abuse its discretion

Conner v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 455 (Va. 1966) (once a final order directs sentences to run concurrently the trial court may not later change them to consecutive)
Wood v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 1257 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (court must look to sentencing order language to determine intent; absent express language sentences run consecutively)
Reinke v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 357 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) (revocation and resuspension is a new sentencing event allowing different conditions on resuspension)
Nuckoles v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 1083 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (trial court may fix reasonable terms and conditions for suspension, including active incarceration)
Botkin v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 177 (Va. Ct. App. 2017) (multiple sentences are presumed consecutive unless court expressly orders concurrency)
Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555 (Va. 2016) (sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 529 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (in revocation appeals factual findings and judgments are overturned only for clear abuse of discretion)