Ray Lindsay Everette v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                               COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    UNPUBLISHED
    Present: Judges Humphreys, Athey and Callins
    Argued at Virginia Beach, Virginia
    RAY LINDSEY EVERETTE
    MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
    v.      Record No. 0032-22-1                                  JUDGE CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR.
    DECEMBER 29, 2022
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
    Stephen J. Telfeyan, Judge
    Kelsey M. Bulger, Senior Assistant Public Defender (Virginia
    Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.
    Tanner M. Russo, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
    Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
    Ray Lindsey Everette (“Everette”) appeals his conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of
    Chesapeake (“trial court”) for operating a motor vehicle after having been adjudged a habitual
    offender. Everette contends that because Code § 46.2-357 was repealed before his trial, the trial
    court erred in convicting him. He also argues that the trial court erred in convicting him because the
    Commonwealth failed to prove that he was operating a motor vehicle. We disagree and therefore
    affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    I. BACKGROUND
    Jared Egge (“Egge”) testified that between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on September 13, 2019,
    he was driving in heavy traffic on Route 168 when his vehicle was suddenly rear-ended by a
    minivan. Following the collision, Egge exited his vehicle before realizing that a third vehicle had
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    rear-ended the minivan which caused the minivan to rear-end his vehicle. Egge walked back to
    check on the condition of the minivan’s driver before proceeding farther back to the third vehicle
    where he encountered Everette. Egge testified that as he approached the third vehicle, Everette was
    “kind of behind the driver’s door, to the quarter panel.” Everette asked Egge if he had seen another
    man run from Everette’s vehicle. Everette told Egge that another man had been driving Everette’s
    vehicle at the time of the accident. Everette then walked across two lanes of oncoming traffic and
    paced along the shoulder of the opposite side of the four-lane highway. Egge followed Everette
    across the highway and persuaded him to return to the scene of the accident as they waited for law
    enforcement to arrive.
    Law enforcement arrived ten to twelve minutes after the accident. Officer Harris
    interviewed those involved in the three-car accident. When Officer Harris asked for his driver’s
    license, Everette could not produce it. Everette told Officer Harris that he was not the driver of the
    vehicle, but that he had been drinking that day, fallen asleep, and awakened to “this shit.” Everette
    also stated that a man named Nate had been the person driving the vehicle and that Nate ran toward
    the tree line following the accident. In response, Officer Harris requested a K-9 unit to track the
    alleged driver, Nate.
    Officer Cannon noticed that Everette was off balance when standing. As a result, after
    handcuffing him, Officer Cannon instructed Everette to lay across the police vehicle so that he did
    not fall. Everette then advised the other officers present that he needed an inhaler but did not have
    one in the vehicle. Medics were then called to the scene by law enforcement, but Everette refused
    their care, at which point Officer Harris transported Everette to the hospital for treatment. Officer
    Harris testified at trial that he overheard Everette tell the nurse at the hospital that “[n]obody was
    driving.” But when asked by the nurse “who was driving with him,” Everette said the person’s
    name was “Willie,” then said, “Joe Schmope,” and then said, “he didn’t know.”
    -2-
    Back at the scene of the accident, K-9 Officer Slezak performed a K-9 search beginning
    approximately an hour after Everette’s allegation that another person had been driving the vehicle.
    Officer Slezak explained that such temporal distance from the initial imprint of tracks is optimal and
    that the conditions for tracking that evening were “about as good as it gets.” The K-9 never alerted
    the officers to any ground disturbance during the search for the alleged driver.
    Everette was indicted on January 7, 2020, for operating a motor vehicle after having been
    declared a habitual offender pursuant to Code § 46.2-357. On March 31, 2021, the General
    Assembly repealed Code § 46.2-357 in its entirety, effective July 1, 2021. At trial, the
    Commonwealth established that Everette had previously been adjudged a habitual offender in
    2005. Everette was convicted and sentenced to five years of incarceration with four of those years
    suspended. He now appeals.
    II. ANALYSIS
    A. Standard of Review
    “[T]he issue of whether a statute should be applied retroactively presents a question of
    law that we review de novo on appeal.” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 
    44 Va. App. 179
    , 184 (2004).
    “[I]nterpreting a law to apply retroactively is ‘not favored, and . . . a statute is always construed
    to operate prospectively unless a contrary legislative intent is manifest.’” McCarthy v.
    Commonwealth, 
    73 Va. App. 630
    , 647 (2021) (second alteration in original) (quoting Berner v.
    Mills, 
    265 Va. 408
    , 413 (2003)). “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he
    judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly
    wrong or without evidence to support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 
    72 Va. App. 513
    , 521
    (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 
    296 Va. 450
    , 460 (2018)).
    -3-
    B. The trial court did not err by convicting Everette under Code § 46.2-357.
    Everette argues that because Code § 46.2-357 was repealed instead of amended and
    reenacted, his conviction is void ab initio. Since Everette failed to raise this objection at trial, he
    asks this Court to review his assignment of error under Rule 5A:18’s “ends of justice” exception.
    “[T]o invoke the ‘ends of justice’ exception, an appellant ‘must “affirmatively show[]
    that a miscarriage of justice has occurred[,] not . . . that a miscarriage might have occurred.”’”
    Perry v. Commonwealth, 
    58 Va. App. 655
    , 674 (2011) (second and fourth alterations in original)
    (quoting Bazemore v. Commonwealth, 
    42 Va. App. 203
    , 219 (2004) (en banc)). The error must
    also have been “clear, substantial[,] and material.” Id. at 668 (quoting Bazemore, 42 Va. App. at
    219).
    Although the common law rule of abatement forbade the continued prosecution of
    offenses defined by statutes which were repealed during the course of the prosecution, Abdo v.
    Commonwealth, 
    218 Va. 473
    , 475 (1977), the General Assembly has modified the common law
    rule. Code § 1-239. Indeed, “[a] core principle of statutory interpretation is that ‘interpreting a
    law to apply retroactively is “not favored, and . . . a statute is always construed to operate
    prospectively unless a contrary legislative intent is manifest.”’” Montgomery v. Commonwealth,
    
    75 Va. App. 182
    , 189-90 (2022) (second alteration in original) (quoting McCarthy, 73 Va. App.
    at 647). New procedural statutes should apply to pending proceedings “so far as practicable.”
    McCarthy, 73 Va. App. at 648 n.9. However, newly enacted substantive statutes do not apply
    retroactively except to the extent that they provide for retroactive application, or to the extent
    that they decrease the defendant’s punishment and the defendant then agrees to the application of
    the new law. Code § 1-239; McCarthy, 73 Va. App. at 647.
    This rule applies equally to the retroactive application of substantive criminal statutes
    (whether they decriminalize conduct or merely reduce the punishment) in pending criminal
    -4-
    prosecutions. See Ruplenas v. Commonwealth, 
    221 Va. 972
    , 977-78 (1981) (citing Abdo, 218
    Va. App. at 478); Green v. Commonwealth, 
    75 Va. App. 69
    , 86 (2022).
    Every reasonable doubt is resolved against a retroactive operation
    of a statute, and words of a statute ought not to have a retrospective
    operation unless they are so clear, strong and imperative that no
    other meaning can be annexed to them or unless the intention of
    the legislature cannot be otherwise defined.
    Shilling v. Commonwealth, 
    4 Va. App. 500
    , 507 (1987).
    Although Code § 46.2-357 was repealed, rather than being amended and reenacted, that
    does not impact our analysis. Here, Everette was indicted on January 7, 2020. On March 31,
    2021, Title 46.2, Chapter 3, Article 9, encompassing Code § 46.2-357, was repealed in its
    entirety, effective July 1, 2021. The portion of the law repealing Code § 46.2-357, in its entirety
    states: “That Article 9 (§§ 46.2-355.1 through 46.2-363) of Chapter 3 of Title 46.2 of the Code of
    Virginia is repealed.” There is no indication in the language of the repeal of the statute that the
    legislature intended the repeal itself to be applied retroactively. Additionally, the statute is
    clearly substantive law. Since the trial court did not err, this case does not represent a
    miscarriage of justice, and therefore does not fall within the ends of justice exception.
    C. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Everette was driving the motor vehicle.
    Everette argues that the Commonwealth failed to offer sufficient evidence to exclude the
    hypothesis that someone else was driving the vehicle. We disagree.
    To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Everette was the driver, the Commonwealth
    needed to present evidence that would justify the trier of fact rejecting any reasonable hypothesis
    of innocence supported by the evidence. Case v. Commonwealth, 
    63 Va. App. 14
    , 22 (2014);
    Powers v. Commonwealth, 
    211 Va. 386
    , 388 (1970); Emerson v. Commonwealth, 
    43 Va. App. 263
    , 277 (2004). Even if “‘some evidence . . . support[s]’ the appellant’s hypothesis of
    innocence,” we must affirm if “a reasonable [fact finder], upon consideration of all the evidence,
    -5-
    could have rejected [the appellant’s] theories in his defense and found him guilty of [the charged
    crime] beyond a reasonable doubt.” Emerson, 43 Va. App. at 277 (third and fourth alterations in
    original) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hudson, 
    265 Va. 505
    , 513 (2003)). A reasonable fact finder
    may reject theories advanced by the defendant even if they are supported by some evidence, so
    long as it could reasonably infer from all the other evidence a theory of the case consistent with
    guilt and inconsistent with innocence. Commonwealth v. Moseley, 
    293 Va. 455
    , 464-65 (2017)
    (citations omitted).
    “Circumstantial evidence is not ‘viewed in isolation’ because the ‘combined force of
    many concurrent and related circumstances, each insufficient in itself, may lead a reasonable
    [fact finder]’ to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty.” Rams v.
    Commonwealth, 
    70 Va. App. 12
    , 27 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Muhammad v.
    Commonwealth, 
    269 Va. 451
    , 479 (2005)). “[W]here the Commonwealth’s evidence as to an
    element of an offense is wholly circumstantial, ‘all necessary circumstances proved must be
    consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of
    innocence.’” Moral v. Commonwealth, 
    4 Va. App. 310
    , 314 (1987) (quoting Inge v.
    Commonwealth, 
    217 Va. 360
    , 366 (1976)). Nonetheless, even if “‘some evidence . . . support[s]’
    the appellant’s hypothesis of innocence,” we must affirm if “a reasonable [fact finder], upon
    consideration of all the evidence, could have rejected [the appellant’s] theories in his defense and
    found him guilty of [the charged crime] beyond a reasonable doubt.” Emerson, 43 Va. App. at
    277 (third and fourth alterations in original) (quoting Hudson, 
    265 Va. at 513
    ).
    Here, Everette was the only person observed near the driver’s side of the motor vehicle
    immediately following the collision. He also briefly left the immediate scene of the accident,
    paced back and forth on the opposite side of the highway, never ascertained the condition of the
    others involved in the accident, and returned only when persuaded by another driver to do so.
    -6-
    Everette’s version of events concerning the alleged phantom driver was also inconsistent. At
    first, he stated that “Nate” was the driver. Later, while speaking with a nurse, he was overheard
    stating first that the alleged driver who ran from the scene was named “Willie,” and then later
    represented to the same nurse that the driver was named “Joe Schmope.”
    In addition, a K-9 unit was employed to track the alleged driver within one hour of his
    alleged flight from the scene of the accident, but the unit found no evidence of anyone leaving
    the scene of the accident even though the conditions for tracking were ideal. Given the
    inconsistencies in Everette’s version of events as well as the strength of the circumstantial and
    direct evidence supporting the trier of fact’s conclusion that he was the driver of the vehicle, the
    evidence is sufficient to support the conviction when coupled with his previous adjudication in
    2005 as a habitual offender. Viewed as a whole, the circumstances presented to the trial court
    were sufficient for a rational fact finder to conclude that Everette was the driver of the vehicle.
    Therefore, the trial court did not err in convicting Everette of operating a motor vehicle after
    having been adjudged a habitual offender.
    III. CONCLUSION
    Accordingly, we affirm Everette’s conviction.
    Affirmed.
    -7-