Craig Henderson v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                       COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and Clements
    Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
    CRAIG HENDERSON
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 3017-99-1        CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK
    DECEMBER 12, 2000
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
    Thomas S. Shadrick, Judge
    Catherine L. MacLean, Assistant Public
    Defender, for appellant.
    John H. McLees, Jr., Senior Assistant
    Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney
    General, on brief), for appellee.
    Craig Henderson (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of
    robbery.   On appeal, he contends: (1) the trial court erred in
    denying his motion for a continuance, (2) the evidence was
    insufficient to prove the taking was accomplished by violence, and
    (3) the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the robber.
    We disagree and affirm his conviction.
    I.
    Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
    prevailing party below, granting to that evidence all reasonable
    * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    inferences fairly deducible therefrom.     See Juares v.
    Commonwealth, 
    26 Va. App. 154
    , 156, 
    493 S.E.2d 677
    , 678 (1997).
    So viewed, the evidence established that about 8:00 p.m. on
    December 19, 1998, James Minson (Minson) left Pembroke Mall to
    smoke a cigarette.   Appellant followed Minson outside, and the two
    men smoked and talked together for about eight minutes.    The area
    was well-lit, and Minson had a "clear look" at appellant.    As they
    spoke, appellant suddenly threw down his cigarette, said "there
    she is," and began to chase Ms. Merriam Scott (Scott) and Philip
    Anderer.   Minson observed appellant "lowering his right shoulder,
    swinging it forward in a blocking -- football-blocking-type
    motion."   It was "no big movement," but it was intentional, "like
    running through her, but preparing yourself to do it."     Appellant
    struck Scott, knocked her to the ground, grabbed her purse and
    continued to run.
    A number of other people chased appellant, saw him leave the
    scene, but could not identify him.     Approximately ten days after
    the robbery, Minson was shown a photo lineup by Detective Hebert
    and identified appellant as the person involved in the robbery.
    At trial Minson stated that there was no doubt in his mind that
    appellant was the man who robbed Scott.
    At the close of the evidence, appellant moved to strike the
    evidence because the evidence was (1) insufficient to identify him
    as the robber and (2) insufficient to establish the force or
    - 2 -
    violence necessary to prove a robbery.      The court denied
    appellant's motion and found him guilty of robbery.
    II.    Motion for a Continuance
    Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying
    his motion for a continuance made two days before trial to allow
    a privately retained attorney to represent him.
    "The decision whether to grant a continuance is a matter
    within the sound discretion of the trial court."       Lowery v.
    Commonwealth, 
    9 Va. App. 304
    , 307, 
    387 S.E.2d 508
    , 509 (1990).
    The Virginia Supreme Court has established a two-pronged test
    for determining whether a trial court's denial of a continuance
    is reversible error.       Reversal is required only if it appears
    from the record: (1) that the court abused its discretion and
    (2) that the movant was prejudiced by the court's decision.          See
    Cardwell v. Commonwealth, 
    248 Va. 501
    , 509, 
    450 S.E.2d 146
    , 151
    (1994).
    On January 13, 1999, appellant requested and received
    court-appointed counsel.      Trial was set for June 12, 1999, but was
    continued by joint motion to August 4, 1999.      On August 2, 1999,
    appellant requested another continuance to substitute privately
    retained counsel for the Assistant Public Defender assigned to his
    case.    He stated that he had just recently received funds to
    retain a new lawyer, who had agreed to represent him but who could
    not be present on August 4, 1999.      The record showed that
    appointed counsel had participated in a "fairly detailed"
    - 3 -
    preliminary hearing and was ready for trial.   The duty judge heard
    arguments on this motion and denied the continuance.   At trial,
    appellant again requested a continuance which was denied by the
    trial judge.
    An accused's right to be represented by counsel "includes
    'not only an indigent's right to have the government appoint an
    attorney to represent him, but also the right of any accused, if
    he can provide counsel for himself by his own resources . . . to
    be represented by an attorney of his own choosing.'"   Bolden v.
    Commonwealth, 
    11 Va. App. 187
    , 190, 
    397 S.E.2d 534
    , 536 (1990)
    (quoting Thacker v. Slayton, 
    375 F. Supp. 1332
    , 1335 (E.D. Va.
    1974)).    However, this right is "limited by a 'countervailing
    state interest . . . in proceeding with prosecutions on an orderly
    and expeditious basis.'"   Id. at 190, 
    397 S.E.2d at 536
     (quoting
    Paris v. Commonwealth, 
    9 Va. App. 454
    , 460, 
    389 S.E.2d 718
    , 721-22
    (1990) (citations omitted)).   A court may also consider the
    convenience of the witnesses who are prepared to testify at the
    proceeding.    See Lebedun v. Commonwealth, 
    27 Va. App. 697
    , 713-14,
    
    501 S.E.2d 427
    , 435 (1998).    "'Obviously, a defendant has no
    constitutional right to dictate the time, if ever, at which he is
    willing to be tried by simply showing up without counsel, or with
    allegedly unsatisfactory counsel, whenever his case is called for
    trial.'"    Bolden, 11 Va. App. at 190, 
    397 S.E.2d at 536
     (quoting
    Sampley v. Attorney General of North Carolina, 
    786 F.2d 610
    , 613
    (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    478 U.S. 1008
     (1986)).   Nor does the
    - 4 -
    right to effective assistance of counsel guarantee the defendant
    will be represented by a particular attorney.    Feigley v.
    Commonwealth, 
    16 Va. App. 717
    , 721, 
    432 S.E.2d 520
    , 523 (1993).
    The trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether a
    defendant should be granted a continuance to obtain new counsel.
    See id. at 721, 
    432 S.E.2d at 523
    .     "Only an unreasoning and
    arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a
    justifiable request for a delay violates the right to the
    assistance of counsel."   Mills v. Commonwealth, 
    24 Va. App. 95
    ,
    99-100, 
    480 S.E.2d 746
    , 748 (1997) (citations omitted).    However,
    exceptional circumstances must exist to justify a continuance
    based upon a last minute change of counsel.    See Shifflett v.
    Commonwealth, 
    218 Va. 25
    , 30, 
    235 S.E.2d 316
    , 320 (1977).
    Exceptional circumstances do not exist when a defendant has "a
    'basic feeling' that his attorney would not represent him as ably
    as privately retained counsel."   Feigley, 16 Va. App. at 721, 
    432 S.E.2d at 523
    .
    In the instant case, appellant waited until late in the
    afternoon two days prior to the second trial date to request a
    continuance for new counsel.   The case had already been continued
    once before, for a month and a half.    Appellant's sole reason for
    the last minute change of counsel was that he had obtained the
    money necessary to hire a private attorney.    This case is
    analogous to the situation in Feigley.    Appellant failed to
    justify a continuance at the last minute as no exceptional
    - 5 -
    circumstances existed for his request to substitute counsel two
    days before trial and again the day of trial.
    Furthermore, appellant has not shown that the denial of a
    continuance prejudiced his case.     There is no indication that his
    court-appointed public defender was inadequately prepared for
    trial, failed to pursue a defense or failed to perform any other
    duties required of her.   Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his
    discretion in denying appellant's motion for a continuance in
    order to substitute new counsel.
    III.    Violence
    Appellant next contends that the evidence was insufficient to
    convict him of robbery because the Commonwealth failed to
    establish that the purse was taken "by violence or intimidation."
    In order to sustain a robbery conviction, the Commonwealth has the
    burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of
    robbery which include a "'taking, with intent to steal, of the
    personal property of another, from his person or in his presence,
    against his will, by violence or intimidation' which precedes or
    is 'concomitant with the taking.'"        Jones v. Commonwealth, 
    13 Va. App. 566
    , 572, 
    414 S.E.2d 193
    , 196 (1992) (emphasis added)
    (citations omitted).   "Violence or force requires a physical
    touching or violation of the victim's person.       The touching or
    violation necessary to prove the offense may be indirect, but
    cannot result merely from the force associated with the taking."
    Bivens v. Commonwealth, 
    19 Va. App. 750
    , 752, 
    454 S.E.2d 741
    , 742
    - 6 -
    (1995) (emphasis added) (citing Johnson v. Commonwealth, 
    65 Va. (24 Gratt.) 555
    , 557 (1873)).    The element of violence is related
    to the violence or intimidation directed at the person of the
    victim not violence used on the object taken.    See Winn v.
    Commonwealth, 
    21 Va. App. 179
    , 182, 
    462 S.E.2d 911
    , 912 (1995).
    In the absence of evidence of physical contact or a struggle with
    the victim, there is no violence used in the taking of a purse.
    See id. at 183, 
    462 S.E.2d at 913
    .
    A purse snatching is not robbery unless the evidence proves
    the accused used violence against the victim's person or used
    intimidation.    See Jones v. Commonwealth, 
    26 Va. App. 736
    , 739,
    
    496 S.E.2d 668
    , 669 (1998); See also Winn, 
    21 Va. App. at 181-83
    ,
    
    462 S.E.2d at 913
    .    If the accused pushes the victim in taking the
    purse, he has committed the requisite violence to be convicted of
    robbery.    See Broady v. Commonwealth, 
    16 Va. App. 281
    , 289, 
    429 S.E.2d 468
    , 473 (1993).    The violence used does not need to be
    great or cause any actual harm to the victim.    Tapping the victim
    on the shoulder and jerking her around is sufficient violence to
    support a robbery conviction even though the victim isn't knocked
    down.    See Jones, 
    26 Va. App. at 740
    , 
    496 S.E.2d at 670
    .
    In the instant case appellant ran toward the victim, lowered
    his right shoulder and swung it forward in a blocking --
    "football-blocking-type motion."    It appeared that appellant
    prepared to strike Scott before the contact occurred.    After being
    hit, she fell to the ground as appellant continued running away.
    - 7 -
    Thus, in this case the violence was directed at the victim and did
    not "result merely from the force associated with the taking."
    Bivens, 19 Va. App. at 752, 
    454 S.E.2d at 472
    .     Accordingly, we
    hold that the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a
    reasonable doubt the violence requisite to sustain a robbery
    conviction.
    IV.    Identification
    Lastly appellant contends that the evidence was
    insufficient to establish his identity as the person who
    committed the robbery.   Determining credibility of witnesses is
    within the province of the trier of fact, who has the
    opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they
    testify.   See Tross v. Commonwealth, 
    21 Va. App. 362
    , 383, 
    464 S.E.2d 523
    , 533 (1995) (citing Lea v. Commonwealth, 
    16 Va. App. 300
    , 304, 
    429 S.E.2d 477
    , 479 (1993)).      The trial court's choice
    to believe Minson's testimony will not be reversed on appeal
    unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.      See 
    id.
    In evaluating an eyewitness identification, the opportunity and
    ability of the witness to view the criminal before and during
    the crime, "the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of
    the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of
    certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and
    the length of time between the crime and the confrontation," are
    factors to be considered.      McCary v. Commonwealth, 
    228 Va. 219
    ,
    223, 
    321 S.E.2d 637
    , 644 (1984).
    - 8 -
    Minson testified that he had a clear look at appellant,
    spoke with him for eight minutes and saw appellant run toward
    and hit the victim.   Minson clearly identified appellant both
    from the photo identification and in court as the man who robbed
    Scott.   The testimony of one witness, if believed, is sufficient
    to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and to sustain a
    guilty verdict.   See Bryant v. Commonwealth, 
    10 Va. App. 421
    ,
    427, 
    393 S.E.2d 216
    , 220 (1990).
    The evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of
    robbery, and the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of
    discretion.   Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is
    affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    - 9 -