Jamonte Nishan Pope v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0151221

Trooper stopped Pope after receiving notice the vehicle's license plates were stolen; Pope produced no ID and gave the name "Dominic Pope."
Trooper later identified Jamonte Pope via DMV photo; Pope was charged with forging public records and other offenses; he pleaded guilty to one count of forging public records (Code § 18.2-168) under a plea agreement that nolle prosequied the remaining counts.
During plea colloquy Pope acknowledged sentencing was within the court's discretion, that the guidelines recommended roughly 11 months–2 years 5 months, and that the statutory maximum was ten years.
At sentencing the Commonwealth proffered Pope's extensive criminal history and new charges/convictions while on bond; Pope offered mitigating evidence and asked for the low end of the guidelines.
The circuit court sentenced Pope to five years with three years suspended (active two years), and Pope appealed claiming the sentence was an abuse of discretion and disproportionate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by imposing a two-year active sentence	Pope: court failed to weigh mitigation and imposed a disproportionate sentence	Commonwealth: court considered aggravating/mitigating evidence; sentence within statutory range	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence is within statutory limits so appellate review ends
Whether Pope preserved a substantive sentencing challenge for appeal	Pope: argued for a lower sentence at trial (requested guideline low end)	Commonwealth/concurring view: merely requesting a lower sentence is not the same as objecting that the imposed sentence is an abuse of discretion; Rule 5A:18 requires specificity	Majority decided on merits and affirmed; concurrence would affirm on preservation grounds (finding Pope did not preserve the specific abuse-of-discretion argument)
Whether an Eighth Amendment proportionality claim was available on appeal	Pope: (raised on brief) sentence was constitutionally disproportionate	Commonwealth: claim was not raised below and is defaulted under Rule 5A:18	Not considered — Eighth Amendment challenge was not preserved and is precluded on appeal

Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555 (Va. 2016) (sentencing review standard: abuse of discretion)
Alston v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 759 (Va. 2007) (sentence within statutory maximum will not be overturned as abuse of discretion)
Thomason v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 89 (Va. Ct. App. 2018) (once sentence is within statutory range, appellate review is complete)
Keselica v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 31 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (weighing mitigating factors is within trial court's discretion)
Williams v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 25 (Va. 2017) (preservation rule: arguing for a different sentence does not necessarily preserve an abuse-of-discretion challenge)
Owens v. Owens, 41 Va. App. 844 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (framework for defining abuse of discretion: factual error, legal error, or improper weighing)
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (U.S. 2020) (federal sentencing preservation differs because federal law requires sentencing court to impose the least amount of imprisonment necessary)