COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges O’Brien and Lorish UNPUBLISHED JOSHUA CARL GANNON VOLTZ MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 0845-22-3 PER CURIAM APRIL 4, 2023 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF STAUNTON Anne F. Reed, Judge (Samantha Offutt Thames, Senior Appellate Counsel; Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on brief), for appellant. (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; John Beamer, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Joshua Carl Gannon Voltz challenges the length of the active sentence he received for convictions of assault as a hate crime, assault of a law enforcement officer, and misdemeanor assault and battery of a family member, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-57(B), (C), and -57.2. He contends that the trial court erred by failing to give appropriate weight to his mitigation evidence. We hold that the appeal is wholly without merit.1 After a thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413. 1 After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously agrees that because “the appeal is wholly without merit,” oral argument is unnecessary. Therefore, we dispense with oral argument in accordance with Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a) and Rule 5A:27(a). BACKGROUND2 The appellant pleaded guilty to assault as a hate crime, assault of a law enforcement officer, and misdemeanor assault and battery of a family member. Before accepting the appellant’s guilty pleas, the trial court conducted a colloquy with him to ensure that he understood their implications. During the colloquy, the appellant acknowledged that he faced a total maximum sentence of ten years and twelve months of incarceration and a $7,500 fine. He assured the court that he had reviewed the sentencing guidelines with his attorney and understood that the trial court was not required to follow them. The court accepted the guilty pleas, finding that he made them “freely, intelligently, and voluntarily.” The Commonwealth proffered that on February 20, 2021, the appellant entered a convenience store and “locked eyes” with Josue Heriberto Navarro Aguirre, who was standing at a kiosk ordering food. The appellant approached Aguirre in “an aggressive manner,” and they “exchanged words.” A “heated” argument ensued, and the appellant yelled that “[a]ll you Mexicans should die.” He also declared that “they all need to go back where they came from.” As the two men approached each other, Aguirre’s sister and another person grabbed Aguirre’s arms and shoulder to prevent an escalation. While Aguirre was restrained, the appellant punched him in the face. Staunton Police Department officers arrived at the convenience store in response to a report of a “fight in progress.” When Officer R.A. Brady told the appellant he was being charged with a hate crime, he called Brady a racial slur. 2 On appeal, we recite the facts “in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court.” Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 231 (2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals