Terra Nyree Hines v. Commonwealth of Virginia
59 Va. App. 567
| Va. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Terra Nyree Hines pleaded guilty to two robberies under Va. Code § 18.2-58 and to using a firearm during a robbery under § 18.2-53.1.
- At sentencing, the court considered mitigating evidence and imposed 20-year terms on each robbery, 10 years for the firearm offense, and suspended portions to yield a 13-year active sentence.
- The Commonwealth did not object to below-guidelines sentencing at the hearing.
- . The trial court ultimately suspended 15 years on each robbery and 7 years on the firearm, resulting in an active total of 13 years.
- On appeal, Hines challenges the ten-year firearm sentence as exceeding the statutory maximum, and argues the overall active sentence was too harsh in light of mitigating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18.2-53.1 has a maximum term for a first conviction. | Hines argues the statute fixes only a three-year maximum. | Commonwealth agrees the first-offense maximum is three years, but notes the 2004 amendment uses 'mandatory minimum' language. | Ten-year term not permitted; statute imposes only a three-year mandatory minimum for first conviction. |
| Whether the ten-year firearm sentence constitutes an abusive excess beyond the statutory range. | Hines contends the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. | Commonwealth concedes the interpretation but argues the 'mandatory minimum' should be read as a floor only. | Remains within the statutory range for the firearm offense as interpreted by the court; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the three-year mandatory minimum can be treated as a maximum given the 2004 amendment and legislative history. | Hines asserts the amendment created a true minimum, not a maximum. | Commonwealth argues the amendment did not substantively change the range and that minimum means minimum. | Court adopts interpretation that the statute provides a mandatory minimum only, not a maximum; ten-year sentence illegal for first conviction. |
| Whether the resulting 13-year active sentence for robberies was an abuse of discretion. | Mitigating evidence should yield a lower sentence. | Sentence within statutory maximums and consistent with discretion. | No abuse; thirteen years active for robberies within the statutory limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullock v. Commonwealth, 48 Va.App. 359, 631 S.E.2d 334 (Va. Ct. App. 2006) (legislative amendments not intended to substantively change mandatory penalties)
- Kozmina v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 347, 706 S.E.2d 860 (Va. 2011) (statutory interpretation and mandatory penalties)
- Rawls v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 334, 634 S.E.2d 697 (Va. 2006) (review of mandatory minimum contexts and sentencing framework)
- Deagle v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 304, 199 S.E.2d 509 (Va. 1973) (invalid portion of an excessive sentence)
- Turner (United States v. Turner), 389 F.3d 111, 120 (4th Cir. 2004) (mandatory minimums without stated maximums often imply life maximum)