The Virginia Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeals decision Thursday that had favored a probationer who failed to pay court costs, ruling that lower courts had sufficient evidence to find Derek Brawner in violation of his probation terms.

The case, *Commonwealth v. Brawner*, centers on whether a probationer's failure to pay court costs constitutes a willful violation of probation conditions. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the Court of Appeals misconstrued the trial court's findings and that evidence supported the probation violation.

Brawner pleaded guilty on July 31, 2019, to possession of heroin, possession of a firearm while possessing heroin, and possession of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony. He received a five-year suspended sentence conditioned on three years of supervised probation. The sentencing order required Brawner to pay court costs totaling $3,373.

As part of his sentencing, Brawner signed a court cost agreement form stating he must pay court costs or establish a payment plan with the clerk's office within 45 days of being released from incarceration. This agreement created a specific obligation that became central to the subsequent violation proceedings.

The Circuit Court of Arlington County later issued a show cause order to Brawner based on his failure to pay the required court costs. Following a hearing on the matter, the circuit court found that Brawner was in violation of the conditions of his probation for failing to meet his financial obligations.

Brawner appealed this finding to the Virginia Court of Appeals, which reversed the circuit court's decision. The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding Brawner in violation of his probation terms. The appeals court emphasized certain statements made by the circuit court and concluded that "the record does not support a finding that Brawner willfully failed to comply with probation."

The Commonwealth of Virginia then appealed this decision to the state's highest court, arguing that the Court of Appeals had misconstrued comments made by the circuit court during the original hearing. The Commonwealth contended that the evidence was sufficient for the circuit court to find Brawner in violation of his probation conditions, regardless of the appeals court's interpretation of the trial court's statements.

In its opinion issued December 18, 2025, the Virginia Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth's position. The court found that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly analyzed the circuit court's findings and that there was adequate evidence to support the probation violation determination.

The case highlights ongoing tensions in the criminal justice system regarding the enforcement of financial obligations as conditions of probation. Courts must balance the need to ensure compliance with sentencing orders against considerations of a defendant's ability to pay and the distinction between willful and non-willful violations.

Probation violations for unpaid court costs and fees have become increasingly scrutinized by appellate courts, particularly in cases where defendants may lack the financial means to satisfy their obligations. The willfulness standard typically requires courts to determine whether a probationer had the ability to pay but chose not to, as opposed to being genuinely unable to meet the financial requirements.

The Virginia Supreme Court's decision reinforces the authority of trial courts to make factual determinations about probation violations, provided there is sufficient evidence in the record to support their findings. The ruling suggests that appellate courts should exercise restraint in second-guessing trial court assessments of witness credibility and factual evidence presented during violation hearings.

For probation officers and defense attorneys, the decision emphasizes the importance of developing a complete record regarding a probationer's financial circumstances and efforts to comply with payment obligations. The case also underscores the significance of the specific language used in probation agreements and court cost payment plans.

The reversal means that Brawner's original probation violation finding stands, potentially subjecting him to the consequences outlined in his original sentencing order. The case returns to the circuit court level for any further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.

This decision may influence how Virginia courts approach similar cases involving probation violations based on unpaid financial obligations, particularly regarding the standard of evidence required to establish willful non-compliance with court-ordered payments.