An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 19.2-303.03, relating to modification of sentence for marijuana-related offenses.
HB26 creates a new procedure for people serving sentences for certain marijuana-related felony offenses committed before July 1, 2021 to seek sentence modification. For eligible individuals still incarcerated, on probation, or under community supervision as of July 1, 2026, the court that entered the original judgment must schedule a hearing to consider reducing, vacating, or otherwise modifying the sentence. The bill covers both cases involving only marijuana offenses and cases where a marijuana offense was combined with another non-violent offense, with different hearing deadlines for each category.
At the hearing, the court must take into account that marijuana has been legalized and may reduce the sentence, including to time served, or remove the person from community supervision, unless the Commonwealth shows that modification would not be compatible with the public interest. The bill also provides a process for appointed counsel for indigent petitioners, requires the court to issue a decision within 30 days, and requires written reasons if relief is denied. Clerks must send modification orders to the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, the Department of State Police, and the relevant correctional facility.
The bill adds § 19.2-303.03 to the Code of Virginia and creates a new post-conviction resentencing mechanism for marijuana-related felony convictions and delinquency adjudications. It affects courts, prosecutors, incarcerated people, probationers, community-supervision supervisees, and correctional agencies by requiring hearings, notice to the Commonwealth, possible appointment of counsel, and reporting of orders to state agencies. It also directs courts to consider legalization of marijuana as a factor in sentence modification and authorizes relief that can shorten or end supervision, while preserving the original sentence as the outer limit of any modification.
The available record shows the bill was enacted as Chapter 1103, which suggests it had sufficient support to pass. Although no committee transcripts or vote breakdowns are provided, the bill’s structure indicates a generally reform-oriented approach aimed at providing relief to people serving older marijuana sentences after legalization. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials limits any precise assessment of debate, but the enacted status suggests the measure was ultimately accepted by the legislature and governor.
The main point of potential contention is the scope of relief and the standard for denial. The bill requires courts to consider legalization and favors modification unless the Commonwealth proves relief would be incompatible with the public interest, which could raise concerns among prosecutors or victims’ advocates about automatic or broad resentencing. Another possible issue is the inclusion of cases involving marijuana offenses combined with other non-violent offenses, which expands eligibility beyond pure marijuana cases. The bill also distinguishes between purely marijuana cases and mixed-offense cases with different deadlines, reflecting a balance between broad relief and limiting the timing and reach of hearings.