Robert L. Branch, s/k/a v. CW ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
ROBERT L. BRANCH, S/K/A
ROBERT LEVON BRANCH
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1408-96-1 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III
JULY 8, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Von L. Piersall, Jr., Judge
Brenda C. Spry, Deputy Public Defender, for
appellant.
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;
Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee
submitting on brief.
The defendant was convicted in a bench trial of robbery in
violation of Code § 18.2-58. On appeal, he challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he was the robber.
Finding no error, we affirm the conviction.
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, as the prevailing party, and grant to it all
reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Higginbotham
v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975).
So viewed, the evidence proves that the victim was approached
from behind and knocked down, a coat was thrown over his head and
his pockets were emptied. After the robbery, he told the police
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
officers at the scene that he had thirteen dollars in his pocket,
however, at trial he testified that he had given a friend five
dollars right before he was attacked. The victim did not see and
could not identify his assailant. He testified that he "just
felt the guy on me."
Wayne Henson, a friend of the victim, testified that after
the victim left his house Henson and his cousin were alerted by
Henson's mother to go see about the victim. When Henson and his
cousin went down the street, they found the victim on the ground
with the defendant "over top of" him and "another person there
but he was standing" nearby. When Henson started towards the
person standing near the victim, that person ran away. Henson
testified that in order to get the defendant "off of from on top
of" the victim "[m]y cousin tackled him" and held him until the
police arrived. Officers C. T. Durham and Robert Joyner
testified that, after they arrived on the scene, they arrested
the defendant and recovered eight dollars from his pocket.
The defendant argues that because the evidence proves that
he was only standing "over top" the victim and fails to prove
that he was touching the victim, it was insufficient to prove
that he was the robber. The defendant contends that he was
merely an observer and that the person who ran from the scene was
the robber. However, the defendant would have us view the
evidence and reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the
light most favorable to him and to disregard the testimony from
- 2 -
which the fact finder could reasonably infer that he was the
robber. In view of the testimony that the victim was on the
ground, that he "just felt the guy on me," Henson's testimony
that the defendant was "over top of" the victim, and that his
cousin "tackled" the defendant in order to get him "from on top
of" the victim, the evidence was sufficient for the fact finder
to infer that Henson and his cousin subdued the defendant and
held him until the officers arrived because the defendant was
robbing the victim. After the defendant was arrested, he had an
amount of money on him consistent with the amount that was taken
from the victim. The fact finder was not required to accept the
defendant's version and could infer that his story was fabricated
to conceal his guilt. See Speight v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App.
83, 88, 354 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1987) (en banc). Because credible
evidence supports the trial court's decision, we affirm the
conviction.
Affirmed.
- 3 -