HB1413Introduced in the House of Delegates
Limitation on sentence upon revocation of suspension of sentence; technical violations.
Introduced by Charlie Schmidt, District 77
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Limitation on sentence upon revocation of suspension of sentence; technical violations. Provides that the court shall consider all technical violations that are alleged to have occurred after a prior sentencing or revocation hearing as single technical violation and adjudicate the case as such, with punishment imposed pursuant to relevant law. The bill also prohibits the court from treating multiple technical violations during a single probationary period between such prior sentencing or revocation hearing as separate cases or adjudicate such violations at separate hearings. The bill requires that when a defendant has been taken into custody for an alleged violation for which the court may impose not more than 14 days of active incarceration, the court shall docket such case as soon as practicable, and any such case shall be given precedence on the docket. The bill states that if such violation is not adjudicated within 14 days of the defendant being taken into custody, the defendant shall be admitted to bail, unless (i) such defendant consents to being further detained while awaiting adjudication or sentencing or (ii) the Commonwealth has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant presents a significant risk of harm to himself or the community based on substance use disorder or serious mental illness and has been referred for residential treatment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the bill provides that no such defendant shall be held in custody awaiting adjudication of or sentencing on such alleged technical violation for longer than 30 days. The bill also expands the list of technical violations and provides that it shall be a defense to an alleged violation if the defendant can show that he has substantially complied with his probation obligations.
Where it stands
Continued to next session in Courts of Justice (12-Y 3-N)
March 9, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
House of Delegates votes
3 recorded votes · each counted separately
Senate votes
1 recorded vote · each counted separately
SenateStage: Continued to next session in Courts of Justice (12-Y 3-N) · March 9, 2026
12
Yes
3
No
0
Absent or Not Voting
15 senators recorded in this Senate vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
See how each senator voted
| Senator | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Michael Jones | 77 | No |
| Mark Obenshain | 2 | Yes |
| William Stanley | 7 | Yes |
| Mark Peake | 8 | Yes |
| Creigh Deeds | 11 | Yes |
| Glen Sturtevant | 12 | Yes |
| Richard Stuart | 25 | Yes |
| Ryan McDougle | 26 | Yes |
| Russet Perry | 31 | Yes |
| Kannan Srinivasan | 32 | Yes |
Bill history
Presented and ordered printed 26103278D
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
Fiscal Impact Statement from Department of Planning and Budget (HB1413)
Assigned HCJ sub: Criminal
House subcommittee offered
Subcommittee recommends reporting with substitute (7-Y 3-N)
Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (15-Y 6-N)
Committee substitute printed 26107431D-H1
Read first time
Read second time
committee substitute agreed to
Engrossed by House - committee substitute
Read third time and passed House (62-Y 35-N 0-A)
Constitutional reading dispensed (on 1st reading)
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
Fiscal Impact Statement from Department of Planning and Budget (HB1413)
Senate committee offered
Continued to next session in Courts of Justice (12-Y 3-N)
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.