Jason Lamont Burford v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 890 S.E.2d 645

Burford was convicted in general district court of sexual battery, assault and battery, and stalking; sentenced to 36 months with 30 months suspended for five years, conditioned on reporting to community-based probation (CBP), completing a mental-health evaluation, and complying with recommendations.
After release he completed an initial mental-health evaluation, which recommended a subsequent psychosexual evaluation; he did not complete that psychosexual evaluation and missed probation appointments.
Burford told a Henrico probation officer he was on "unsupervised probation" (citing a district-court website summary), argued he therefore need not follow probation instructions, and terminated a call with the officer; he did not resolve the issue with counsel.
The district court found he violated probation, revoked the suspended balance, imposed six months active incarceration, and resuspended the remainder; Burford appealed to the circuit court for a de novo hearing.
The circuit court again found Burford violated a court-imposed special condition (failure to follow recommendations), held the violation was non-technical, imposed six months active, and resuspended the balance; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Burford)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether Burford violated a condition of his suspended sentences	He reasonably believed he was on unsupervised probation (website summary) and thus was not required to complete the psychosexual evaluation	The conviction orders and intake review expressly required a mental-health evaluation and compliance with recommendations; Burford was informed and signed the conditions	Court found Burford knowingly refused to comply and did violate the suspended-sentence condition
Whether the violation was a "technical violation" under Code § 19.2-306.1(A)	Failure to maintain contact and follow probation officer instructions qualifies as a technical violation subject to § 19.2-306.1(C) limits	The failure was to follow a court-imposed special condition (follow recommendations), not merely a probation-officer instruction, so it is non-technical under § 19.2-306.1(B)	Court held the condition was a special condition and the violation was non-technical
Whether the six-month active sentence was an abuse of discretion	He had initial compliance and a claimed misunderstanding; any sanction should be limited under technical-violation rules	For non-technical violations the court has broad discretion to revoke and impose/resuspend any portion; Burford’s refusal showed he was not amenable to rehabilitation	Court affirmed six months as a permissible exercise of discretion

Green v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 69 (Va. Ct. App. 2022) (standard of review for revocation appeals and statutory interpretation review)
Heart v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 453 (Va. Ct. App. 2022) (distinguishing technical and non-technical violations under § 19.2-306.1)
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 613 (Va. Ct. App. 2023) (defining special conditions and limits on classifying conduct as technical)
Delaune v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 372 (Va. Ct. App. 2023) (technical violation framework discussion)
Diaz-Urrutia v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 182 (Va. Ct. App. 2023) (courts cannot evade technical-violation limits by crafting special conditions to cover listed technical conduct)
Duff v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 293 (Va. Ct. App. 1993) (revocation discretion must be reasonable cause)
Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 325 (Va. 1976) (judicial discretion in revocation requires conscientious judgment)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (revocation hearings are not a stage of criminal prosecution; differing due process protections)
Marshall v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 217 (Va. 1960) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in revocation proceedings)
Slayton v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 357 (Va. 1946) (credibility and weight of testimony for revocation are for the trial court)