Clarifying “Single Course of Conduct” and Permitting Separate Revocation Hearings Under Va. Code § 19.2-306.1

Introduction

Commonwealth v. Canales, decided April 10, 2025 by the Supreme Court of Virginia, addresses two central questions under Virginia’s probation‐revocation scheme (Code § 19.2-306.1): (1) whether a sentencing court must hear all alleged probation violations from a single major violation report in one consolidated proceeding, and (2) how to identify a “single course of conduct” for purposes of counting technical violations. The dispute arose when Silfredo Castillo Canales, on supervised probation for statutory burglary and grand larceny convictions, repeatedly missed appointments and failed drug screens over several months. The Arlington County Circuit Court heard his violations in separate sessions and imposed active jail time for what it deemed multiple violations. The Court of Appeals split the difference, holding separate hearings permissible but concluding that only two “courses of conduct” existed—thus limiting active confinement to 14 days. The Supreme Court granted review to settle the proper interpretation of § 19.2-306.1 and the term “single course of conduct,” ultimately reinstating the circuit court’s sentence in part.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Virginia held:

Code § 19.2-306.1 does not mandate that all probation violations in one major violation report be heard in a single revocation hearing. A court retains broad discretion to divide or consolidate proceedings as it deems appropriate.
A “single course of conduct” under § 19.2-306.1 is an uninterrupted, continuous series of actions or omissions—i.e., acts sufficiently connected in time, place and circumstance to form a cohesive whole.
The violations in this case—spanning five months and punctuated by periods of compliance—were discrete, interrupting any claim of an unbroken chain of misconduct. The circuit court therefore permissibly treated them as multiple violations and imposed active incarceration beyond the 14‐day cap applicable to a second technical violation.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold separate hearings, reversed its limitation of active time to 14 days, and reinstated the circuit court’s judgment in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Delaune v. Commonwealth (302 Va. 644, 2023): Clarified that statutory interpretation is de novo review; factual findings in revocation are discretionary.
Grant v. Commonwealth (223 Va. 680, 1982): Emphasized remedial purpose of probation statutes and liberal construction to further rehabilitation.
Hamilton v. Commonwealth (217 Va. 325, 1976): Held that trial court’s factual determinations in probation revocation are entitled to deference absent abuse of discretion.
Jones v. Commonwealth (296 Va. 412, 2018) & Supinger v. Stakes (255 Va. 198, 1998): Reinforced that courts must give effect to the plain language of statutes, without judicially adding requirements.
United States v. Bermudez-Plaza (1st Cir. 2000): Confirmed that courts—not probation officers—govern the initiation and structure of revocation proceedings.
Castillo Canales v. Commonwealth (78 Va. App. 353, 2023): Court of Appeals’ opinion defining “single course of conduct” and limiting active incarceration to two technical violations.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s analysis turned on two interpretive points:

Separate Hearings Permitted. Section 19.2-306.1(A) says only that multiple technical violations “arising from a single course of conduct or a single incident or considered at the same revocation hearing shall not be considered separate ….” The statute is silent about requiring consolidation. Under established principles—“plain, obvious and rational meaning” controls (City of Charlottesville v. Payne)—the absence of a consolidation mandate means courts may split hearings to manage their dockets.
Defining “Single Course of Conduct.” Because § 19.2-306.1 lacks its own definition, the Court endorsed a dictionary‐based approach: the term connotes an “ordered continuing process, succession, sequence, or series of acts or behavior.” Incorporating Black’s Law Dictionary’s “continuing”—i.e., uninterrupted—yields a requirement that violations be part of an unbroken chain, with no significant temporal or circumstantial gaps.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that Canales’s missed drug screens and appointments occurred over five months, interspersed with multiple negative tests and attended meetings. These interruptions, plus evidence that he “made deliberate decisions at each juncture,” supported the circuit court’s view that the violations were distinct rather than one continuous course. The Court therefore reinstated the circuit court’s imposition of 42 days active confinement.

Impact

Commonwealth v. Canales clarifies two critical aspects of Virginia probation law:

Judicial Discretion. Trial courts have flexibility to structure revocation proceedings—whether to combine allegations into one hearing or divide them across multiple sessions—so long as statutory safeguards (e.g., notice, right to counsel, due process) are observed.
Scope of “Single Course of Conduct.” Future litigants and lower courts will apply the “uninterrupted sequence” test when determining whether multiple violations count separately or collectively for sentencing caps. Periods of compliance or factual distinctions are likely to break continuity, permitting separate sanctions.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys must therefore document the timing and context of each violation carefully. The decision also underscores the importance of presenting evidence to connect or distinguish individual acts when “course of conduct” disputes arise.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Technical Violation: An infraction of probation rules (e.g., missing a meeting or failing a drug test) that is not itself a new crime.
Revocation Hearing: A court proceeding in which it is determined whether a probationer’s suspension should be revoked and whether active jail time is to be imposed.
“Single Course of Conduct”: A continuous, uninterrupted series of related acts or behavior. If gaps or changes in conduct occur, each segment may count as a separate violation for sentencing.
Statutory Presumption Against Incarceration: Under Va. Code § 19.2-306.1(C), a first technical violation cannot yield active time; a second violation requires specific findings before any jail can be imposed (capped at 14 days); later violations carry no such cap.

Conclusion

Commonwealth v. Canales establishes that Virginia courts need not consolidate all probation violations from one report into a single hearing and must apply an “uninterrupted sequence” test when assessing whether multiple violations constitute one or several “technical violations.” By affirming the circuit court’s structure and reinstating its sentence, the Supreme Court affirmed judicial discretion in docket management and clarified the meaning of “single course of conduct” under Va. Code § 19.2-306.1. This decision will guide prosecutors, defense counsel, and trial judges in structuring revocation proceedings and determining how to count probation violations for sentencing purposes.