A man accused of violating a protective order three times last month lost his bid Friday for potential release on bond.
Steven Eugene Fadeley appeared in Shenandoah County General District Court on Friday for a hearing on a request to reconsider a bond for his release.
Fadeley, 39, of Saint Luke Road, Woodstock, stands charged in Shenandoah County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court with three counts of violating a protective order; in General District Court with making a false statement on a consent form for a firearm and attempting to possess a gun while the subject of a protective order; and in Circuit Court with two counts of possession of a schedule I or II controlled substance and possession of precursors to make methamphetamine.
Fadeley remains held without bond in Rappahannock-Shenandoah-Warren Regional Jail.
A judge in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court denied bond to Fadeley based on two charges of violating a protective order. Fadeley appealed the judge’s decision to Circuit Court.
Judge Thomas J. Wilson heard arguments from Fadeley’s defense counsel Chad Logan and Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Elena Procopi. Logan, appointed to represent Fadeley on the bond appeal, argued his client should receive a reasonable bond given the defendant’s lack of criminal convictions and does not pose a flight risk. Procopi argued that Fadeley poses a risk to the community given the multiple charges of violating a protective order, which he allegedly committed while ordered to remain of good behavior pending the outcome of his case in Circuit Court.
The attorneys first sought the judge’s opinion on whether on not Fadeley’s charges qualify under the state’s presumption against bond. Procopi told Wilson she interpreted the code section to read that a charge of a second or subsequent offense of violating a protective order carries a presumption against bond. Logan said he interpreted to code to say his client must be convicted of a first offense of violating a protective order before the presumption against bond can apply in the case of a second or subsequent such offense.
Wilson sided with the prosecutor and found the presumption against bond applies in Fadeley’s case. However, a judge can grant bond to a defendant even if the presumption applies. Wilson heard further arguments from the attorneys as to whether or not the court should reconsider the defendant’s request for bond.
Logan argued Fadeley should receive a bond because the defendant has no pending allegations of committing an act of violence or has had any incidents of failing to appear for a court date. Fadeley doesn’t pose a flight risk, Logan added.
“I believe a reasonable, secured bond at this point would secure his presence and the conditions of the bond and the threat of incarceration before trial would be a good a deterrent to prevent future violations,” Logan said.
Both attorneys said they had no information about Fadeley's second and third charges of violating a protective order. Procopi said she had no criminal complaints with the second and third alleged violations of a protective order.
The prosecutor pointed out in her argument against bond that Fadeley has pending criminal charges in General District Court and Circuit Court. Logan said his client’s charges in Circuit Court date to 2016.
“Your honor, I think the concern here is although the charges in Circuit Court may be from 2016, I think the court would expect an individual who’s been on pre-trial (services) for more than two years to be on good behavior during that time, and we have a situation in which Mr. Fadeley continues to get additional charges, and I don’t think there’s any information before the court that he’s a flight risk, but I think there’s clear information before the court that he’s a risk, a danger to the community,” Procopi said.
The prosecutor said Logan minimized his client’s first charge of violating a protective order but noted that parties don’t know the circumstances behind Fadeley’s second and third counts of the same offense.
An emergency protective order was served on Fadeley Jan. 11. Authorities charged Fadeley with violating that protective order three days later.
A woman told law enforcement on Jan. 14 that “she received flowers and a handwritten note from Steven Fadeley,” a criminal complaint filed with the defendant’s charge of violating a protective order states.
“(The woman) also stated Fadely (sic) drove by her house which is down a private drive and a dead end,” the complaint states. “Fadely (sic) is the respondent of a no-contact protective order in which (the woman) is the petitioner.”
Fadeley committed two more counts of violating a protective order two weeks after he was charged with the first offense, Procopi said.
State police also have charged Fadeley with trying to buy a gun while the subject of the protective order. Trooper C.S. Peer states in a criminal complaint that he received a call that a person identified as Fadeley who had a protective order issued against him was trying to buy a firearm. The protective order had been served on Fadeley on Jan. 14 and was effective until Jan. 29, the complaint states. Fadeley filled out the firearms transaction record form and checked “no” for court-ordered restraint, according to the complaint.