Commonwealth v. Blaxton
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Virginia?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Virginia. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
James Blaxton was convicted in 1989 of rape, forcible sodomy and attempted sodomy. In 2008, the Commonwealth filed a petition seeking Blaxton's civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. The trial court found that Blaxton was a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). The circuit court subsequently entered an order granting Blaxton conditional release and transferred supervision of Blaxton to the state of Illinois after finding that the SVPA does not prohibit interstate transfers of sexually violent predators. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's judgment was error pursuant to Commonwealth v. Amerson, in which the Court held that the SVPA does not authorize the conditional release of a sexually violent predator outside the Commonwealth. Remanded.
Download PDF
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, McClanahan and Powell, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. Record No. 102360 JAMES BLAXTON OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 2, 2012 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Charles E. Poston, Judge In this case we consider whether a person who is adjudged a sexually violent predator can be conditionally released for supervision outside the Commonwealth because he also is subject to supervised probation for another crime and therefore eligible for transfer under the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Adult Offenders (Interstate Compact). Code §§ 53.1-176.1, et seq. James A. Blaxton was convicted in 1989 of rape, forcible sodomy and attempted sodomy in violation of Code §§ 18.2-61, 18.2-67.1 and 18.2-67.5, respectively. In June 2008, the Commonwealth filed a petition seeking Blaxton s civil commitment as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Code §§ 37.2-900 et seq. (the Sexually Violent Predators Act or SVPA). Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Blaxton is a sexually violent predator and the trial court confirmed the jury s verdict. Pursuant to Code § 37.2-908, the circuit court heard evidence on possible alternatives to civil commitment. The Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (Department) prepared a conditional release plan which recited that Blaxton requested a transfer to live with his mother in Illinois. The circuit court concluded that the SVPA does not prohibit interstate transfers of sexually violent predators and entered an order granting Blaxton conditional release, adopting the conditional release plan prepared by the Department and transferring supervision of Blaxton to the state of Illinois pursuant to the Interstate Compact. Subsequent to the circuit court s ruling, we decided Commonwealth v. Amerson, 281 Va. 414, 422, 706 S.E.2d 879, 884 (2011), in which we held that the SVPA does not authorize the conditional release of a sexually violent predator outside the Commonwealth. Accordingly, the circuit court s judgment adopting the conditional release plan and transferring supervision of Blaxton s conditional release outside the Commonwealth of Virginia was error. Blaxton argues, however, that the trial court s judgment should be affirmed because transfer of his supervision outside the Commonwealth was appropriate because he is subject to probation supervision for another crime and therefore qualified for transfer under the Interstate Compact. Blaxton did not argue in the trial court that transfer of his supervision outside the Commonwealth was permitted under the Interstate 2 Compact based on his probation status for another criminal conviction. Nevertheless, we address this argument here because it is a question of law and no further facts must be developed to resolve the issue raised by Blaxton for the first time in this Court. Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 580, 701 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2010). We reject Blaxton s argument. First, supervision of sexually violent predators cannot be transferred outside the Commonwealth. Amerson, 281 Va. at 422, 706 S.E.2d at 884. Therefore, even if a defendant qualified for transfer under the Interstate Compact for some other criminal conviction, the specific restriction on a person adjudicated a sexually violent predator pursuant to the SVPA cannot be disregarded because the person may qualify for transfer for other reasons under the Interstate Compact. Furthermore, the Interstate Compact does not specifically recognize a person under supervision pursuant to a civil commitment as an offender subject to transfer. Under the Interstate Compact an offender is defined as [a]n adult placed under, or subject to, supervision as the result of the commission of a criminal offense and released to the community under the jurisdiction of courts, paroling authorities, corrections, or other criminal justice agencies. Code § 53.1-176.2, art. II. Under this definition, the supervision is imposed because of the commission of a criminal offense, not, as in this case, because of a civil adjudication 3 of sexually violent predator. Rules adopted by the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) pursuant to the Interstate Compact, Code § 53.1-176.2, art. VIII, address transfer of supervision of sex offenders, but these rules identify a sex offender as one who has been convicted of a criminal offense. Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision, ICAOS Rules, Rules 1.101, 3.101-3, available at http:// www.interstatecompact.org (follow ICAOS Rules hyperlink) (last visited Feb. 17, 2012). Therefore, Blaxton would not qualify for transfer under the Interstate Compact based on his adjudication as a sexually violent predator. See Amerson, 281 Va. at 422 n.2, 706 S.E.2d at 884 n.2. For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court adopting the conditional release plan prepared by the Department and transferring Blaxton s supervision to the state of Illinois is reversed and the case remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings regarding whether there is any suitable, less restrictive, alternative to involuntary inpatient treatment for Blaxton consistent with the SVPA. Reversed and remanded. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
