Probation Revocation and “Single Course of Conduct” Under Virginia Code § 19.2-306.1

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in Canales v. Commonwealth, 302 Va. ___ (2025), addresses two principal questions arising under Code § 19.2-306.1: (1) whether a sentencing court must consider all reported probation violations in a single revocation hearing, and (2) what constitutes a “single course of conduct” when grouping multiple technical violations for sentencing purposes. In these consolidated appeals, Silfredo Castillo Canales challenges the circuit court’s division of his probation violations into separate hearings and contends that all violations arose from one continuous sequence of misconduct. The Commonwealth defends the court’s procedural discretion and its factual finding that the violations were distinct events. Justice Teresa M. Chafin, writing for a unanimous court, affirms in part, reverses in part, and reinstates the circuit court’s judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court holds that Code § 19.2-306.1 does not impose a statutory mandate that all probation violations reported in one major violation report must be heard in a single revocation hearing. Trial courts retain discretion to manage revocation proceedings and may hear discrete violations separately.
The Court defines “single course of conduct” as an uninterrupted, continuous sequence or series of acts or behavior that are connected by time, place, or circumstance. Multiple technical violations stemming from such an uninterrupted series are treated as one violation for sentencing under § 19.2-306.1(A).
Applying these principles to Castillo Canales, the Supreme Court finds no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s factual determination that his seven probation violations—occurring over five months with intermittent compliance—did not form one continuous series of misconduct.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the circuit court’s hearings of March 11, 2022, and reinstates the circuit court’s sentences imposed on May 13, 2022, thereby allowing a total of 42 days’ active incarceration.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Commonwealth v. Delaune, 302 Va. 644 (2023) – Clarified that statutory interpretation questions are reviewed de novo and emphasized that plain legislative language controls.
Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 325 (1976) – Held that factual findings in probation revocation proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Grant v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 680 (1982) – Recognized the remedial purpose of probation statutes and affirmed broad judicial discretion in revocation and suspension decisions.
United States v. Bermudez-Plaza, 221 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2000) – Federal precedent underscoring that courts, not probation officers, control initiation and scope of revocation proceedings.
Additional authorities include Supinger v. Stakes, 255 Va. 198 (1998); Jones v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 412 (2018); and Commonwealth v. Amos, 287 Va. 301 (2014), each reinforcing principles of statutory construction and legislative intent.

2. Legal Reasoning

A. No Single-Hearing Requirement. The Court begins with the plain text of § 19.2-306.1, which limits sentences for technical probation violations but does not prescribe a procedural requirement that all violations in one violation report be heard together. Relying on the maxim that courts must give effect to statutory language as written, the Court refuses to graft a single-hearing mandate into the statute. It also notes that probation statutes are remedial and grant trial courts broad discretion to structure revocation proceedings.

B. Defining “Single Course of Conduct.” Because the statute does not define the term, the Court synthesizes dictionary definitions: “course” as a “process, succession, sequence or series,” and “conduct” as “behavior by action or inaction.” It adds the adjective “continuing,” drawn from the notion of an “ordered continuing process,” to clarify that a “single course of conduct” requires an uninterrupted, unbroken series of interrelated acts or omissions.

C. Application to Castillo Canales. The circuit court’s extensive factfinding confirmed that Castillo Canales failed screens and appointments intermittently over five months, punctuated by periods of compliance and separated by weeks or months. These interruptions disrupted continuity and supported the circuit court’s exercise of discretion to treat each violation separately. Consequently, all seven violations did not merge into one technical violation for sentencing purposes.

3. Impact

The decision provides clear guidance to Virginia trial courts on managing probation revocation dockets and interpreting § 19.2-306.1:

Courts are not compelled to bundle all reported violations into a single hearing, thereby allowing flexible docket management.
The “single course of conduct” test will be fact-specific, focusing on continuity of behavior without interruption.
Probationers and practitioners gain clarity on when multiple infractions will count as one technical violation (no break in conduct) versus multiple violations (intermittent compliance or discrete episodes).

This ruling will influence sentencing strategies and probation-revocation practice, ensuring that both abusive fragmentation and over-aggregation of hearings are avoided.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Technical Violation: A non-criminal breach of probation conditions, such as missing appointments or failing drug tests.
Single Course of Conduct: An uninterrupted, continuous sequence of misconduct—if there is a break or period of compliance, it is not “single.”
De Novo Review: Appellate courts independently review questions of law (e.g., statutory interpretation) without deferring to the trial court’s legal conclusions.
Abuse of Discretion: A deferential standard applied to trial courts’ factual findings or procedural decisions—overturned only if arbitrary or unreasonable.
Circuit Court’s Discretion: The broad power granted to trial judges to manage their dockets and the manner of hearings, subject only to statutory limits.

Conclusion

Canales v. Commonwealth clarifies that Virginia Code § 19.2-306.1 neither mandates a single revocation hearing for all reported probation violations nor defines “single course of conduct” as encompassing episodic or interrupted misconduct. By articulating that only an uninterrupted, continuous series of acts qualifies as one “course of conduct,” and reaffirming the trial court’s procedural discretion, the Supreme Court ensures that sentencing under the statute remains faithful to legislative intent and sensitive to the facts of each case. This decision will guide trial judges, probation officers, and appellants in structuring revocation proceedings and applying the sentencing caps for technical violations.