Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Carroll v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided September 1, 2009No. 1860084Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAlston, J.

I concur in the holding and judgment of the majority that the trial court did not err in failing to consider “a reasonable alternative treatment modality (sex offender treatment with an expert forensic psychologist) in lieu of probation revocation coupled with the condition of successfully completing the same program from which [ajppellant was terminated.” The “only limitation placed upon the discretion of the trial court in its determination of what conditions are to be imposed is that a condition be ‘reasonable.’ ” Nuckoles v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1083, 1086, 407 S.E.2d 355, 356 (1991).…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Montagna v. Holiday Inns, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1980
  5. James v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1994

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API