Andre Pierre Beal v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2022 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Huff, Athey and Friedman
UNPUBLISHED
Argued by videoconference
ANDRE PIERRE BEAL
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0266-21-3 JUDGE FRANK K. FRIEDMAN
MARCH 8, 2022
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE
G. Carter Greer, Judge
(Michael A. Nicholas; Daniel, Medley & Kirby, P.C., on brief), for
appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.
Jason D. Reed, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring,1
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Andre Pierre Beal appeals from his conviction for possession of cocaine, arguing that the
evidence was insufficient to show that he knowingly possessed an illegal substance. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2019, Beal was the rear passenger in a vehicle stopped by Martinsville
police for faulty exhaust. The officers received information that the front passenger was wanted,
and they removed him from the vehicle. As he exited the car, one of the officers saw a cut straw
with white powder residue next to the front passenger seat. The officers then removed the driver
and Beal from the vehicle.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
Jason S. Miyares succeeded Mark R. Herring as Attorney General on January 15, 2022.
When Beal stepped out of the car, a tightly rolled dollar bill fell from his lap onto the
ground. Beal cursed and attempted to reach down and retrieve the bill. At the end of the traffic
stop, he asked for the dollar bill back. The bill was found to contain enough cocaine residue to
have stained it a tan color. One of the officers testified at trial that rolled dollar bills are often
used as a straw to administer narcotics.
When the officers searched the front area of the vehicle, they located a blue zipper case
containing small bags of what appeared to be heroin and a black backpack containing used
syringes, a spoon, and two cut straws with residue. They found thirty-three syringes in the
driver’s purse, and they found a bag with tan powder and a smoking device on the front
passenger floorboard. They also found scales in the front passenger door. When the officers
searched the rear portion of the vehicle, they found a bag with heroin residue inside it.2
At trial, Beal stated that he was getting a ride home and that he did not know there were
drugs in the vehicle. He testified first that he had gotten the dollar bill from another person, then
that he had gotten it from a store. He denied using the bill to consume narcotics or knowing that
it had drug residue on it. He testified that the bill was on his lap for “no reason” and that he had
reached down to retrieve it because it was his money. Beal’s testimony was impeached by his
prior felony convictions.
The trial court found that Beal “clearly” was in possession of the dollar bill, stating:
[I]t is quite obvious to the Court that the defendant is lying to
conceal his guilt. The defendant knew darn well that he had a
tightly rolled dollar bill on his lap, and that that dollar bill
contained cocaine because he had used it for that very purpose, and
that was the reason why it was in his lap. That was also the reason
why he uttered the profanity because when he dropped the tightly
rolled dollar bill on the ground, he knew then and there that that
2
Beal was charged with possession of heroin as well as possession of cocaine. The court
convicted Beal for possession of cocaine. The trial court acquitted him of the heroin charge at
the same trial that led to the present appeal, finding insufficient evidence to prove Beal was
knowingly in possession of the heroin.
-2-
was a terrible mistake on his part because the police officer could
see what was on the ground, and he knew, that is the defendant
knew, that this was evidence of his guilt of possession, and that is
why he said the word.
Beal was convicted of possession of cocaine. Beal now assigns error to the trial court’s
finding that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.
II. ANALYSIS
When reviewing a claim related to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must
consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and the judgment of the
trial court may be reversed only when its decision “is plainly wrong or without evidence to
support it.” Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 327 (2018)). “[T]he relevant question is, upon review of the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Secret v. Commonwealth, 296
Va. 204, 228 (2018) (emphasis in original) (quoting Dietz v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 123, 132
(2017)). Furthermore, appellate courts must “discard any of appellant’s conflicting evidence,
and regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that
may reasonably be drawn from that evidence.” Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 473
(2018).
Beal was convicted under Code § 18.2-250, which reads in part:
It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess
a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly
from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner
while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as
otherwise authorized by the Drug Control Act.
In order to prove possession, the Commonwealth must show “that the defendant was
aware of the presence and character of the particular substance and was intentionally and
consciously in possession of it.” Gillis v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 298, 301 (1974). Knowing
-3-
and intentional possession may be proven “by evidence of the acts, statements or conduct of the
accused.” Young v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 587, 591 (2008). Beal argues that the
Commonwealth’s evidence “did not prove that [Beal] knew, at the time he possessed the dollar
bill, that there was heroin [sic] residue on that dollar bill.”
The evidence at trial established that the dollar bill was rolled up tightly, which is an
indication of drug use. Beal acknowledged that the bill was his, cursed when he dropped it in
front of the police, and gave conflicting statements as to where he got it. He offered no
explanation for why he had a dollar bill in his lap or why it was tightly rolled. Though Beal
denied knowing there were drugs in the vehicle, he was riding in a car containing illegal
narcotics and drug paraphernalia.
The trial court found that Beal’s curse when he dropped the bill in front of the police was
an indication of guilty knowledge. As Beal’s “acts, statements or conduct” may be used to show
knowing possession, id., the trial court’s finding was not plainly wrong under our deferential
standard of review. Notably, Beal also requested that the dollar bill be returned to him at the end
of the traffic stop; a reasonable fact-finder could infer from this request that Beal wanted the bill
back because he knew it could be used as evidence against him. The trial court further noted that
Beal’s testimony was impeached by his multiple prior convictions.
The trial court found that Beal “was lying to conceal his guilt” and that he knew that the
dollar bill contained cocaine. “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the
evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that
evidence as it is presented.” Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138 (1995). Issues
of credibility “will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong.” Corvin v. Commonwealth,
13 Va. App. 296, 299 (1991). The trial court here was not plainly wrong in its credibility
determinations regarding Beal’s testimony. “In its role of judging witness credibility, the fact
-4-
finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that the
accused is lying to conceal his guilt.” Marable v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10
(1998).
The trial court’s finding that Beal knowingly and intentionally possessed cocaine was not
plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
-5-