Thomas v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 301

Amanda Marie Thomas was convicted by a jury of felony child abuse and neglect; the jury fixed a maximum active term of 7 years and a fine.
At sentencing, the trial court’s written order stated a 10-year incarceration term with 3 years suspended, and a 3-year period of supervised probation to commence upon release.
Thomas objected that the sentencing order violated Virginia statutory sentencing scheme (Code §§ 19.2-295, 19.2-295.2, 18.2-10) and impermissibly extended the jury-fixed maximum.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion; the Supreme Court of Virginia granted review.
The Supreme Court concluded the trial court had authority to impose post-release supervision and a linked suspended term, but the order as drafted improperly increased the active sentence from 7 to 10 years and failed to reference supervision by the Virginia Parole Board.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of a sentencing order that conforms to the statutes (e.g., 7 years active plus an additional suspended 3-year term conditioned on Parole Board post-release supervision).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s written sentence may exceed the jury-fixed maximum by describing a longer active term (10 years) with part suspended	Thomas: The sentencing order impermissibly extends the jury-fixed maximum from 7 to 10 years in violation of Code § 19.2-295	Commonwealth: Court may suspend part of a sentence and impose conditions; sentencing statutes allow court discretion to structure sentence and supervision	The court held the order as drafted impermissibly lengthened the jury-fixed active term; sentencing order must conform to statutory scheme and not extend the jury’s maximum active term
Whether the trial court adequately imposed post-release supervision and the required Parole Board oversight under Code §§ 19.2-295.2 and 18.2-10	Thomas: The order failed to impose post-release supervision under the Virginia Parole Board as required	Commonwealth: The trial court intended supervised probation; relied on discretion to set supervision and suspension	The court held the order did not state that supervision would be under the Virginia Parole Board nor properly link a suspended term of incarceration to post-release supervision as required; remand for corrected order

Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386 (1958) (legislature defines crimes and penalties)
DePriest v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (statutory allocation of sentencing authority)
Duncan v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 342 (Va. Ct. App. 1986) (jury fixes maximum punishment subject to judicial suspension)
Lamb v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 52 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (purpose of post-release supervision statutes is remedial and to replace parole)
United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013) (postrelease conditions aim to rehabilitate and protect public)
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (probation conditions serve rehabilitation and community protection)
Collins v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 141 (Va. 2005) (revocation of suspended sentence for misbehavior while free on bail)