Ramon Montrell Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1978161
| Va. Ct. App. | Sep 5, 2017Background
- Ramon Montrell Williams pled guilty pursuant to plea agreements to multiple offenses arising from incidents in 2015–2016, including malicious wounding (reduced from aggravated malicious wounding), use of a firearm in the commission of a felony (reduced to first offense for plea purposes), two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, forgery, assault and battery, and possession of ammunition as a felon.
- Williams executed written plea agreements and an "Advice to Defendants Pleading Guilty" form at separate guilty-plea hearings; the court accepted his pleas and ordered presentence reports.
- Sentencing guidelines, influenced by mandatory minimums for the firearm offenses and the firearm-possession convictions, produced a guidelines range with a midpoint of 15 years and a high end of 15 years, 10 months (if one firearm count were treated as second offense the midpoint rose to 15 years).
- The trial court imposed active incarceration totaling 16 years (including three years active on malicious wounding, three years active on the firearm-use count, and ten years active on two firearm-possession counts), with various other sentences suspended; the active term exceeded the guidelines high end by two months.
- On appeal Williams challenged only the three-year active sentence imposed for the malicious wounding, arguing any active incarceration for that offense was an abuse of discretion because mandatory minimums for the firearm convictions already produced a 13-year active requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by imposing any active incarceration for malicious wounding when mandatory firearm penalties already required 13 years active | Williams: Trial court erred by imposing a 3-year active sentence on malicious wounding; doing so exceeds the practical mandatory minimum and is an abuse of discretion — appellate reconsideration of reasonableness is warranted | Commonwealth/Trial Court: Sentence is within statutory range; trial court properly exercised discretion considering criminal history, victim impact, and that offenses occurred while on bond | Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed because it falls within statutory limits and appellate courts will not second-guess a sentence within the legislature's prescribed range |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 175, 755 S.E.2d 468 (Va. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of appellate review for sentencing is abuse of discretion)
- Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 790 S.E.2d 493 (Va. 2016) (sentence within statutory maximum is not overturned as abuse of discretion)
- Alston v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 759, 652 S.E.2d 456 (Va. 2007) (trial court acts within scope when choosing punishment within statutory range)
- Rawls v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 334, 634 S.E.2d 697 (Va. 2006) (affirming deference to trial court sentencing within statutory bounds)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 580, 621 S.E.2d 98 (Va. 2005) (same principle on appellate review of sentence)
- Abdo v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 473, 237 S.E.2d 900 (Va. 1977) (longstanding rule on deference to statutory sentencing ranges)
- Scott v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 35, 707 S.E.2d 17 (Va. Ct. App. 2011) (panel precedent that appellate court will not interfere with sentences within legislative range)
- Vay v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 236, 795 S.E.2d 495 (Va. Ct. App. 2017) (intermediate appellate court bound by Supreme Court and prior panel decisions)