Justin Blake Cox v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1360204

Justin Blake Cox pled nolo contendere to one count of forcible sodomy, abduction with intent to defile, sexual battery, and providing alcohol to a minor; other charges were nolle prossed under the plea agreement.
The plea agreement called for a presentence report but contained no sentencing terms; the trial court accepted the plea and entered convictions in March 2020.
At sentencing (June 25, 2020) neither party requested a psychosexual evaluation; the court sentenced Cox to multiple terms (including two 50-year terms with 40 years suspended).
After sentencing (but before entry of the written sentencing order) Cox filed an emergency motion to vacate the sentence, arguing Code § 19.2-301 required the court to order a psychosexual evaluation and consider its report before sentencing.
The trial court denied the motion, ruling that § 19.2-301 does not independently require an evaluation and that §§ 19.2-300 and 19.2-301 together make an evaluation mandatory only when requested by a party (though the court may itself order one on its own initiative).
The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Code § 19.2-301 independently requires a psychosexual evaluation before sentencing	Cox: § 19.2-301 imposes an unqualified duty on courts to order an evaluation and report prior to sentencing	Commonwealth/Trial court: § 19.2-301 must be read with § 19.2-300; an evaluation is mandatory only if a party requests it; the court may order one on its own initiative	Court: § 19.2-301 does not stand alone; the obligation to defer sentence and obtain the examination is triggered by § 19.2-300 (mandatory when requested; permissive if neither party requests)
Whether the court must find an affirmative knowing waiver before declining to order an evaluation	Cox: if no evaluation is ordered the court must find the defendant knowingly waived the right to one	Commonwealth: no absolute statutory right exists, so no formal waiver finding is required	Court: did not reach the waiver question because it concluded there is no independent statutory right to the exam; affirmed trial court

Alsberry v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 314 (Va. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that a trial court must order an evaluation under § 19.2-300 when the defendant requests one prior to sentencing)
Prillaman v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 401 (Va. 1957) (statutes should be read in pari materia as part of a connected system)
Phelps v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 139 (Va. 2008) (statutory construction gives words their ordinary meaning to discern legislative intent)
Hubbard v. Henrico Ltd. P’ship, 255 Va. 335 (Va. 1998) (every part of a statute is presumed to have effect and statutes should not be rendered meaningless)
Eley v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 158 (Va. Ct. App. 2019) (statutory interpretation presents a question of law reviewed de novo)
Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 573 (Va. 2002) (courts should avoid unreasonably restrictive statutory interpretations that subvert legislative intent)