Jai A. King v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1216202
| Va. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- On August 16, 2019, Jai A. King pled guilty to possession of ammunition by a felon and was sentenced to five years with three years suspended; he was remanded to the sheriff and later approved for the sheriff's Home Incarceration Program (HIP).
- On October 30, 2019 King was released to HIP subject to a non-removable GPS ankle monitor, an agreement limiting residence to a Chesterfield County address, and permission only to travel to and from work.
- On December 30, 2019 King made an unauthorized trip, received a traffic summons, and hours later the sheriff’s monitoring system reported his ankle monitor had been altered; deputies found the cut monitor at an I‑95 on‑ramp and King was absent.
- Deputies swore out warrants for felony escape and misdemeanor HIP violation; King was arrested January 20, 2020 and later pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor HIP violation (not appealed).
- At bench trial on the felony escape charge (July 8, 2020) King moved to strike, arguing he was not "in custody" while in HIP; the trial court denied the motion, convicted him of felony escape, and sentenced him to five years with four years suspended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether participation in HIP constitutes "custody" under Va. Code § 18.2‑479 for purposes of felony escape | King: HIP participants are not in custody; restrictions do not amount to custody | Commonwealth: HIP imposed severe movement restrictions plus continuous GPS monitoring, curtailing freedom to a degree associated with incarceration | Court: King was in custody during HIP (freedom of movement curtailed and continuously monitored); conviction affirmed |
| Whether the existence of a misdemeanor offense under Code § 53.1‑131.2 prevents felony prosecution under § 18.2‑479 | King: statutory HIP offense shows HIP participants are not "in custody," so only the misdemeanor applies | Commonwealth: existence of a separate misdemeanor statute does not preclude charging under § 18.2‑479; prosecutorial discretion applies | Court: Existence of § 53.1‑131.2 does not preclude felony charge; court rejects argument |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 96 (custody can involve less deprivation than absolute confinement; focus on whether movement was curtailed to degree associated with formal arrest)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 12 (no custody where defendant was released on bail with no movement restrictions or monitoring)
- Hall v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 566 (custody is a mixed question of law and fact; appellate review standards explained)
- In re Horan, 271 Va. 258 (prosecutorial discretion permits charging multiple offenses arising from the same conduct)