Jaron Devontae Nottingham v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 884 S.E.2d 254

In 2009 appellant Nottingham was convicted of breaking & entering and felony destruction of property; each sentence was 5 years with 5 years suspended (sentenced Jan. 29, 2010).
Nottingham had prior probation revocations in 2011, 2012, and 2015 for failures to follow probation instructions, marijuana use, and other matters.
A capias issued Sept. 14, 2020 alleged multiple probation violations (failure to report arrests, possession of controlled substance, failing drug screen, travel without permission, failure to follow probation officer); capias executed April 6, 2021.
At the Aug. 23, 2021 revocation hearing Nottingham stipulated to violations but argued the new statute Code § 19.2-306.1 (effective July 1, 2021) meant the instant charges were a single "technical violation" and prior violations could not be counted.
The Commonwealth presented probation-officer testimony characterizing earlier violations as "technical"; the trial court found at least three technical violations and revoked the suspended sentences.
On appeal Nottingham claimed the trial court abused its discretion and implicitly refused to apply Code § 19.2-306.1; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the court properly applied the statute and did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Nottingham's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Code § 19.2-306.1 governed the revocation proceeding	Statute was effective July 1, 2021 and should apply; prior violations pre-enactment cannot be counted as "technical violations" under the new law	Parties agreed to proceed under § 19.2-306.1 at the hearing; statute applies	§ 19.2-306.1 applied because the parties proceeded under it and the court used it in sentencing
Whether prior probation incidents qualify as separate "technical violations" under § 19.2-306.1	The instant violations were first technical violations; prior incidents cannot be tallied under the new statute	Probation-officer testimony showed earlier incidents were properly characterized as technical violations; legislature adopted an existing concept	Court concluded at least three technical violations existed (2011, 2012, and the 2020–21 violations), so prior incidents could be considered
Whether revoking the suspended sentences in full was an abuse of discretion	Trial court improperly revoked entire sentences given statutory limits on incarceration for technical violations	Given the number of technical violations (third or subsequent), § 19.2-306.1(C) permits imposing the original sentence	No abuse of discretion; on third-or-subsequent technical violation the court may impose the original sentence, so revocation affirmed

Heart v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 453 (Va. Ct. App. 2022) (explains purpose and application of Code § 19.2-306.1 and that parties can proceed under new statute)
Green v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 69 (Va. Ct. App. 2022) (addresses statutory interpretation and retroactivity issues related to probation revocation statutes)
Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 529 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for revocation- hearing findings of fact)