Danny Edward Ferguson, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedApril 1, 2025
Docket1894233
StatusUnpublished

This text of Danny Edward Ferguson, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Danny Edward Ferguson, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Danny Edward Ferguson, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia, (Va. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA UNPUBLISHED

Present: Judges Malveaux, Athey and Senior Judge Petty

DANNY EDWARD FERGUSON, III MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 1894-23-3 PER CURIAM APRIL 1, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG F. Patrick Yeatts, Judge

(Mark T. Stewart, on brief), for appellant.1

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Linda R. Scott, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Danny Edward Ferguson (“Ferguson”) appeals his conviction for defying a court order,

in violation of Code § 16.1-292. On appeal, Ferguson contends that the Circuit Court of the City

of Lynchburg (“circuit court”) erred when it “failed to first make a threshold finding of fact with

respect to the reliability of the scientific method offered and the reliability of the particular HEM

[home electronic monitoring] device by a qualified expert witness.” He also contends that the

circuit court erred when it allowed Nicki Rivers to testify about technical matters outside her

personal knowledge and when it admitted a photograph containing GPS plot points of

Ferguson’s movements. Even if we assume that the circuit court erred, we find that any error

would be harmless. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.2

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). 1 Appellant filed a motion to seal his opening brief, which the panel unanimously grants. 2 Having examined the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). I. BACKGROUND3

On March 28, 2023, the Lynchburg Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court

(“JDR court”) sentenced Ferguson to a suspended commitment to the Department of Juvenile

Justice for violating Code §§ 18.2-91 (statutory burglary) and 18.2-95 (grand larceny).4 As a

condition of suspending the commitment, the JDR court ordered Ferguson to remain on HEM for

60 days and further to comply with all services recommended by the Court Services Unit

(“CSU”).

On April 10, 2023, Ferguson’s probation officer filed a petition alleging that Ferguson

had violated the March 28, 2023 JDR court order. As a result, a detention order was issued for

Ferguson by the JDR court. On May 22, 2023, the JDR court subsequently held that Ferguson

had, in fact, violated its March 28, 2023 order and committed him to the Department of Juvenile

Justice for an indeterminate period. Ferguson appealed to the circuit court.

During the hearing before the circuit court, Megan Neal (“Neal”) testified that she was

the juvenile probation officer with the CSU assigned to monitor Ferguson. She testified that on

March 28, 2023, Ferguson was placed on HEM with Elite Watch for 60 days. Neal explained

that Elite Watch is the HEM subcontractor and is responsible for connecting the GPS units,

tracking coordinates, and conducting home checks. She further explained that Elite Watch sends

3 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, 329 (2021)). Doing so requires that we “discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Cady, 300 Va. at 329. Additionally, resolving this appeal requires unsealing certain sealed portions of the record and briefs. “To the extent that we mention facts found only in the sealed record, we unseal only those specific facts, finding them relevant to our decision in this case. The remainder of the previously sealed record remains sealed.” Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 560 n.3 (2016). 4 Ferguson failed to timely note his appeal of these underlying adjudications and thus they are not part of this appeal. -2- the probation office updates three times a week regarding whether the juvenile has complied with

HEM. She added that if a violation occurs, Elite Watch notifies the probation office as soon as

possible and that juveniles placed on HEM are required to remain at home unless Neal gives

them permission to leave.

Here, on April 7, 2023, Elite Watch informed Neal that Ferguson had gone beyond the

permissible boundary of 100 feet outside of his home between 1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on April

6, 2023. When Neal asked Ferguson if he had gone outside the HEM boundary on April 6, 2023,

Ferguson admitted that his brother was in a vehicle across the street and that he had gone over to

speak with him. Neal had not authorized Ferguson to leave his home between 1:30 a.m. and

2:00 a.m. on April 6, 2023.

An Elite Watch caseworker, Nicki Rivers (“Rivers”), also testified that on March 28,

2023, she met with Ferguson and his grandmother, Jackie Ferguson (“Jackie”), at the Lynchburg

Detention Center. The trio discussed what HEM meant, the GPS device that would be attached

to his ankle, and the rules associated with HEM. Rivers reviewed rule number six which

“state[d] that unless otherwise noted . . . [Ferguson] would remain inside his residence at all

times.” Rivers testified that she emphasized this particular rule because Ferguson had issues

complying with the rules when he had been on HEM previously. Both Ferguson and Jackie

signed the contract acknowledging that they understood the terms and conditions of HEM.

Rivers further testified that GPS monitoring information from Elite Watch indicated that

Ferguson was across the street and outside the HEM boundary from 1:30 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. on

April 6, 2023.

Ferguson objected to the admissibility of the GPS data on the basis of reliability. He

argued that the trial court must first make a threshold finding that the scientific method offered is

reliable and that finding required the testimony of an expert witness. Ferguson contended that

-3- Rivers could not provide the technical testimony necessary for the court to make the threshold

finding. The court took Ferguson’s objection under advisement, believing the objection was

premature.

Rivers testified that Elite Watch was a private firm that contracted with the state to

provide HEM service to individuals. Rivers stated that Elite Watch works with a company called

BI Technology, which compiles the technical data and alerts Elite Watch when an individual is

outside his HEM boundary. Rivers noted that she can log into BI Technology’s computer system

and watch individuals in real time. The HEM unit consists of a GPS tracker, an anti-tampering

system, a motion sensor, and a battery to charge the device that is strapped onto the wearer’s

ankle. The unit triangulates between 3 types of devices: satellites, cell phone towers, and open

WiFi, and has 95% accuracy within 30 feet and 100% accuracy outside 30 feet.

Rivers added that in Ferguson’s case, BI Technology calibrated Ferguson’s HEM unit

before Rivers placed it on Ferguson’s ankle. At the detention center, Rivers checked the unit for

any signs of damage and ensured that the unit was accurately transmitting its location so that

Ferguson would not violate the conditions of HEM as long as he remained within the 100-foot

boundary outside his house. Rivers observed Ferguson’s locations between March 28, 2023, and

April 6, 2023. On April 6, 2023, Ferguson’s GPS was 83 feet beyond the HEM boundary.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Clay v. Commonwealth
546 S.E.2d 728 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2001)
Lavinder v. Commonwealth
407 S.E.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1991)
Andrew Becker, s/k/a Andrew Ira Becker v. Commonwealth of Virginia
769 S.E.2d 683 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2015)
Patrick Franklin Graves, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
780 S.E.2d 904 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2016)
Du v. Commonwealth
790 S.E.2d 493 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2016)
Commonwealth v. White
799 S.E.2d 494 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2017)
Dietz v. Commonwealth
804 S.E.2d 309 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Danny Edward Ferguson, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danny-edward-ferguson-iii-v-commonwealth-of-virginia-vactapp-2025.