Du v. Commonwealth, 790 S.E.2d 493

Du (born in Vietnam) moved to the U.S. at 18 to live with his father, stepmother, and 13‑year‑old half‑sister; in 2013 he entered the half‑sister’s bedroom and engaged in sexual acts with her and later attacked his father and stepmother with a baseball bat, seriously injuring both.
Du sent letters to his parents urging them not to cooperate with investigators or appear in court; those attempts at obstruction were documented in the record.
Du pleaded guilty to statutory rape (victim 13), aggravated malicious wounding (father), and malicious wounding (stepmother). At sentencing the court admitted victim impact statements (including the stepmother’s) and observed Du’s demeanor and drawings.
The trial court sentenced Du to an active 50 years in prison (after suspensions) and imposed lifetime probation upon release; it also conditioned the suspended portions on a no‑contact order prohibiting Du from contacting the victims.
Du moved to reconsider the lifetime probation and the no‑contact condition as to his stepmother; the trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeals denied Du’s petition; the Virginia Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lifetime probation following Du’s sentence was an abuse of discretion	Du argued lifetime probation was excessive and unreasonable	Commonwealth argued the sentence (including probation) fell within statutory limits and was justified by offense severity and public safety concerns	Court held no abuse of discretion: probation is less severe than statutory maximums and within sentencing discretion
Whether a no‑contact condition (as to the stepmother) was an abuse of discretion	Du argued the no‑contact order was unreasonable as applied to the stepmother, who purportedly requested contact, and it was not tied to rehabilitation or necessary protection	Commonwealth and trial court relied on Du’s prior efforts to entice victims to recant and victim impact evidence showing the stepmother’s fear, justifying protective condition	Court held no abuse of discretion: record supports reasonable basis for no‑contact order; court could discount prosecutor’s proffer and rely on victim impact statement and obstruction attempts

Anderson v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 580 (rule that reasonableness is sole statutory limit on probation conditions)
Murry v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 117 (probation conditions must be reasonable in light of offense, defendant background, and circumstances)
Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 (appellate review defers to trial court within range of discretion)
Alston v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 759 (sentencing within statutory maximum is not an abuse of discretion)
Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424 (once sentence within statutory limits appellate review ends)
Coe v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 83 (difference of opinion among reasonable judges does not establish abuse of discretion)
Haynes v. Haggerty, 291 Va. 301 (appellate courts may affirm on any reasonable record ground even if not relied on by trial court)