Troy Dyon Tarpley v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2000 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Coleman, Frank and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Salem, Virginia
TROY DYON TARPLEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2890-98-3 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
APRIL 25, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE
Charles M. Stone, Judge
S. Jane Chittom, Appellate Counsel (Elwood
Earl Sanders, Jr., Appellate Defender; Public
Defender Commission, on briefs), for
appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
Troy Dyon Tarpley (appellant) appeals his conviction for
grand larceny after a bench trial on December 9, 1998. On appeal,
he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the
conviction. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant was a passenger in a car driven and owned by
William Bruce. There were two other passengers in the car, Mike
and Jose. Bruce drove the car to an area known as Koehler Hill in
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
the Rivermont Apartment complex. Appellant and Mike exited the
car. There was a group of ten to fifteen people assembled in the
area. An unknown member of the group approached Bruce's car,
reached into the car, and was "fussing" with Jose. Bruce exited
the car to try to move the group away from the vehicle. Bruce was
attacked and knocked unconscious. Robert Smith, a resident of
Rivermont Apartments, witnessed the fight and testified that
appellant was involved in the fight in which Bruce was attacked.
After Bruce was attacked, Jose attempted to drive Bruce's car away
from the crowd and appellant was a passenger in the car. Jose
drove the car onto a curb, and then appellant took over as the
driver of the vehicle. Appellant drove the car away from the
scene of the fight, turned around, and drove the car at a high
rate of speed towards the exit to the apartment complex.
Appellant testified that he took the car because he was afraid and
he wanted to get help. Appellant did not stop at his own
apartment, his mother's apartment, or any other residents'
apartments to seek help. Appellant crashed into some trees as he
exited the complex.
II. ANALYSIS
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his conviction of grand larceny. We find the evidence
sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
"When an appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence,
the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
- 2 -
Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences deducible
therefrom. A judgment will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong
or unsupported by the evidence." Ford v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.
App. 249, 259, 503 S.E.2d 803, 807 (1998) (citations omitted).
"[L]arceny is the taking and carrying
away of the goods and chattels of another
with intent to deprive the owner of the
possession thereof permanently." Lund v.
Commonwealth, 217 Va. 688, 691, 232 S.E.2d
745, 748 (1977). Under Code § 18.2-95, grand
larceny includes "larceny not from the person
of another of goods and chattels of the value
of $200 or more."
Winston v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 746, 757, 497 S.E.2d 141, 147
(1998).
In determining intent [in a larceny
case], "the factfinder may consider the
conduct of the person involved and all the
circumstances revealed by the evidence."
Wynn v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 283, 292,
362 S.E.2d 193, 198 (1987). Indeed, "[t]he
specific intent in the person's mind may, and
often must, be inferred from that person's
conduct and statements." Martin v.
Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 527, 414
S.E.2d 401, 402 (1992) (citing Hargrave v.
Commonwealth, 214 Va. 436, 437, 201 S.E.2d
597, 598 (1974)).
Welch v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 518, 524, 425 S.E.2d 101,
105-06 (1992).
In this case, there was credible evidence that appellant was
involved in the fight in which Bruce was knocked unconscious.
Once Bruce was unconscious, appellant drove Bruce's car away from
the scene at a high rate of speed. Appellant did not stop at any
of the apartments to attempt to get help. Instead, he drove for
- 3 -
the exit to the apartment complex. Such evidence is sufficient to
show intent to permanently deprive Bruce of his vehicle.
Appellant asserts on brief that he took Bruce's car out of
necessity. In order to prove necessity, the defendant must show:
"(1) a reasonable belief that the action was necessary to avoid an
imminent threatened harm; (2) a lack of other adequate means to
avoid the threatened harm; and (3) a direct causal relationship
that may be reasonably anticipated between the action taken
and the avoidance of the harm." Buckley v. City of Falls Church,
7 Va. App. 32, 33, 371 S.E.2d 827, 827-28 (1988).
In this case, appellant presented evidence to the trial court
that he took Bruce's car because he was frightened and wanted to
escape from the group on Koehler Hill. The trial judge rejected
appellant's evidence and convicted him. On appeal, we will not
disturb the trial court's determination of the evidence.
For these reasons, we find the evidence sufficient to support
appellant's conviction for grand larceny and, therefore, affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 4 -