Immediate sanction probation program; established. (HB927)

Introduced By

Del. Rob Bell (R-Charlottesville)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Expedited review of probation violations. Provides that as a condition of suspension of sentence pursuant to 19.2-303, a defendant may participate in expedited review of probation violations.  An offender may request expedited review or the court, on its own motion may recommend participation by the offender. Any offender who participates in expedited review shall agree, in the event he is arrested for a violation of the conditions of his probation, (i) to an expedited hearing before the court, (ii) that he shall not be entitled to counsel unless he waives participation in expedited review, (iii) that he shall not be entitled to release on bail pending the hearing, (iv) that an affidavit prepared by his probation and parole officer detailing the offense for which he was arrested may be received into evidence without the officer's testimony, (v) that the expedited review process is not authorized for new criminal offenses, and (vi) that he may be subject to random and more frequent drug testing. Such an offender would serve no more than 30 days in jail for a probation offense and would be eligible for reduced sanctions after demonstration of compliance with terms and conditions of probation. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


01/13/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10102966D
01/13/2010Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
01/21/2010Assigned MPPS sub: #2
01/27/2010Impact statement from DPB (HB927)
01/28/2010Subcommittee recommends reporting
01/28/2010Subcommittee recommends referring to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/28/2010Subcommittee recommended referring to Courts of Justice by voice vote
01/29/2010Referred from Militia, Police and Public Safety
01/29/2010Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/29/2010Assigned Courts sub: #1 Criminal
02/12/2010Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (6-Y 0-N)
02/12/2010Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2010Committee substitute printed 10104062D-H1
02/14/2010Read first time
02/15/2010Read second time
02/15/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10104062D-H1
02/15/2010Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB927H1
02/16/2010Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (99-Y 0-N)
02/16/2010VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (99-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/17/2010Constitutional reading dispensed
02/17/2010Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/26/2010Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
03/03/2010Impact statement from DPB (HB927H1)
03/03/2010Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (14-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/03/2010Committee substitute printed 10105839D-S1
03/05/2010Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/08/2010Read third time
03/08/2010Reading of substitute waived
03/08/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10105839D-S1
03/08/2010Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB927S1
03/08/2010Passed Senate with substitute (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/09/2010Placed on Calendar
03/10/2010Passed by for the day
03/11/2010Senate substitute agreed to by House 10105839D-S1 (96-Y 0-N)
03/11/2010VOTE: --- ADOPTION (96-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/22/2010Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB927ER)
03/22/2010Signed by Speaker
03/25/2010Signed by President
04/08/2010Impact statement from DPB (HB927ER)
04/13/2010Governor's recommendation received by House
04/20/2010Placed on Calendar
04/21/2010House concurred in Governor's recommendation (95-Y 0-N)
04/21/2010VOTE: --- ADOPTION (95-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/21/2010Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/21/2010G Governor's recommendation adopted
04/21/2010Reenrolled bill text (HB927ER2)
04/21/2010Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/21/2010Signed by President as reenrolled
04/21/2010Enacted, Chapter 845 (effective 7/1/10)
04/21/2010G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0845)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 2 minutes.


L.L. writes:

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. It prevents extended sentences for probation violators (a good thing), saves DOC funds (a good thing), and probably saves money on court-appointed counsel (good) while eliminating the offender's judicial rights (a BAD thing). Is that correct? Am I missing something?

Lloyd Snook writes:

There has been some experience in other places with probation systems that value immediate consequences rather than harsh consequences. They work VERY well, and result in more people successfully completing probation and fewer people in jail.

This is actually very similar to the model used in the Drug Court in Albemarle and Charlottesville that Rob keeps trying to defund, so I am not sure what is going on. Maybe he has seen the light?

Cara Walton writes:

So this really does not cover ANY old law Parole violators right?