COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Senior Judges Annunziata, Frank and Haley UNPUBLISHED MARIO ARISTIDES RIVAS-MARQUEZ MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 0944-21-2 PER CURIAM JUNE 21, 2022 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY Joseph J. Ellis, Judge (Nathanael W. Buczek; Williams Stone Carpenter Buczek, PC, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Matthew J. Beyrau, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief referring to the part of the record that might arguably support this appeal. A copy of that brief has been furnished to appellant with sufficient time for him to raise any matter that he chooses. Appellant has not filed any pro se supplemental pleadings. We have reviewed the parties’ pleadings, fully examined the proceedings, and determined the case to be wholly without merit as set forth below. Thus, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary. See Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. BACKGROUND1 In April 2013, a grand jury indicted appellant for four counts of rape and one count of attempted forcible sodomy. Appellant subsequently entered an Alford2 plea to five counts of indecent liberties. The plea agreement proffered that, had the case gone to trial, the Commonwealth would have proved that appellant vaginally penetrated his then-four-year-old daughter with his penis and attempted to put his penis in her mouth. As part of the plea agreement, the Commonwealth agreed to recommend a total sentence of fifty years in prison, with forty-eight years suspended. The plea agreement further provided that appellant, a citizen of El Salvador whose presence in the United States violated federal immigration laws, “shall immediately upon the completion of his active incarceration leave the United States either through deportation or at his own expense” and that he “shall not return to the United States.” Appellant agreed that, if he returned to the United States, he would be in violation of the plea agreement and “shall serve the remainder of his suspended sentence as active incarceration and the sentences shall run consecutively.” The trial court accepted the plea agreement and imposed the recommended sentence. The trial court incorporated into the sentencing order the plea agreement’s conditions that appellant leave the United States permanently and that, if he returned, he would serve the full remainder of his sentence. Appellant served his active sentence and was deported. When appellant reentered the United States in 2019, he was detained and convicted in federal court of illegal reentry. The Commonwealth then moved to revoke appellant’s previously-suspended sentence. At the revocation hearing, appellant conceded that he violated the conditions of his suspended sentence by 1 “In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party [below].” Poole v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 357, 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals