Charles B. Richardson, IV v. Commonwealth of VA ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                    COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Lemons
    Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
    CHARLES B. RICHARDSON, IV
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 2155-98-1      CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK
    DECEMBER 28, 1999
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
    Johnny E. Morrison, Judge
    Dianne G. Ringer, Senior Assistant Public
    Defender, for appellant.
    Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
    General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
    brief), for appellee.
    Charles B. Richardson, IV (appellant) was convicted in a
    jury trial of statutory burglary while armed, use of a firearm
    in the commission of a felony, and aggravated sexual battery.
    The sole issue raised is whether the identification evidence
    linking appellant to the crimes was sufficient to support the
    convictions.   Finding no error, we affirm.
    I.
    When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on
    appeal, we determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light
    most favorable to the prevailing party, and the reasonable
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
    § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    inferences fairly deducible from that evidence support each and
    every element of the charged offense.    See Moore v.
    Commonwealth, 
    254 Va. 184
    , 186, 
    491 S.E.2d 739
    , 740 (1997); Derr
    v. Commonwealth, 
    242 Va. 413
    , 424, 
    410 S.E.2d 662
    , 668 (1991).
    "In so doing, we must discard the evidence of the accused in
    conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all
    the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair
    inferences that may be drawn therefrom."    Watkins v.
    Commonwealth, 
    26 Va. App. 335
    , 349, 
    494 S.E.2d 859
    , 866 (1998).
    The jury's verdict will not be set aside unless it is plainly
    wrong or without evidence to support it.    See Code § 8.01-680;
    Canipe v. Commonwealth, 
    25 Va. App. 629
    , 644, 
    491 S.E.2d 747
    ,
    754 (1997).
    The evidence established that on November 4, 1997, three
    masked men with guns forced their way into Lakita Henderson's
    apartment.    She recognized two of the assailants, Archie
    Bazemore and Clayton Mabry, but had never seen appellant before
    that night.   Bazemore and Mabry ransacked the apartment while
    the third man ordered Henderson to remove her clothes, ripped
    her shirt, pulled off her bra and rubbed her breasts.    The
    incident lasted five to ten minutes and occurred shortly after
    Derrick Jones, Henderson's boyfriend, left the apartment.
    When the police arrived, Henderson described the third
    assailant as a black male, with medium brown hair, approximately
    5'6" tall and 145 pounds, wearing dark pants and a dark
    - 2 -
    sweatshirt.    Jones testified that when he left the victim's
    apartment he saw Bazemore, Mabry and appellant standing in an
    upstairs hallway and all were wearing dark clothes.   The victim
    identified appellant from a photo array two days after the
    attack.   In identifying appellant's photograph, she concentrated
    on the eyes.   She testified at trial that she could distinctly
    recall his eyes because he "was as close--maybe as close--to me
    as this microphone."   She also identified appellant at trial as
    the third participant.
    In short, there was direct evidence of appellant's guilt
    based upon the victim's out-of-court and in-court
    identifications.   Additionally, there was strong circumstantial
    evidence, including Jones's statement that appellant was present
    in the hallway with the two other participants immediately
    before the crime, which supported the jury's conclusion that
    appellant was one of the three perpetrators involved.   The jury
    was free to reject appellant's alibi testimony, and its
    conclusion was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support
    it.   See Phan v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___,
    ___ (1999) ("In view of the identification testimony of the
    numerous witnesses, the defendant's alibi testimony that the
    jury apparently rejected, . . . the evidence when considered as
    - 3 -
    a whole is sufficient to support the convictions.").
    Accordingly, appellant's convictions are affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2155981

Filed Date: 12/28/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014