Edward Hines Sigler v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2022 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Russell, Athey and Senior Judge Frank
UNPUBLISHED
Argued at Hampton, Virginia
EDWARD HINES SIGLER
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0793-21-1 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
MARCH 15, 2022
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
Christopher W. Hutton, Judge
Charles E. Haden for appellant.
Mason D. Williams, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, 1
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Edward Hines Sigler (appellant) appeals his convictions, following a bench trial, for two
counts of breaking and entering, in violation of Code § 18.2-91; two counts of larceny, third or
subsequent offense, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-103, -104 2; one count of larceny with intent to
sell, in violation of Code § 18.2-108.01; and two misdemeanor counts of obtaining money by
false pretenses, in violation of Code § 18.2-178. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence underlying his convictions. We affirm but remand to the trial court for the limited
purpose of correcting the sentencing orders.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
Jason S. Miyares succeeded Mark R. Herring as Attorney General on January 15, 2022.
2
The legislature repealed Code § 18.2-104, which provided for enhanced penalties for a
third or subsequent larceny conviction, in 2021. 2021 Va. Acts (Sp. Sess. I) ch. 192.
BACKGROUND
“In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.” Gerald v.
Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018) (quoting Scott v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 380, 381
(2016)). In doing so, we discard any of appellant’s conflicting evidence and regard as true all
credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that may reasonably be
drawn from that evidence. Id. at 473.
On May 4, 2019, Dennis VanCamp returned home to find that his back gate and back
door were open. The back door was closed when he left home. VanCamp testified at trial that it
appeared as if “[s]omeone [had] kicked it in or pushed it in.” The Commonwealth submitted a
photograph showing the doorjamb and trim lying on the ground. Upon investigating, VanCamp
found that his laptop had been taken and his wife’s jewelry box was open with several rings
missing. He provided the missing laptop’s serial number and purchase receipt to the police.
According to the receipt, VanCamp paid $572.39 for the laptop and the laptop typically sold for
$1,319.99. VanCamp never saw appellant and did not know him.
That same day, appellant sold a 14-karat gold ring and some scrap silver for which he
purported to have authority to sell to Marque Staton at the Hampton Trading Post for $60. The
ring matched a ring taken from the jewelry box in VanCamp’s house. Staton testified that,
consistent with state regulations, he records all purchases and seller information on a database
called LeadsOnline that law enforcement can access. Daniel Lucy, a detective with the Hampton
Police Department, testified that he used LeadsOnline to discover that appellant had sold a laptop
on May 4, 2019 to Cash Converters for $200. That laptop’s serial number matched the serial
number VanCamp provided for his missing laptop.
-2-
On May 23, 2019, Darrell Snyder returned home to find his back door open. Like
VanCamp, Snyder testified that there was damage to the door and the doorframe as if someone
had kicked in the door. He testified that “[t]he door was split completely down the center” and
“[t]he doorjamb was completely destroyed.” The Commonwealth submitted photographs
showing the extent of the damage. Upon investigation, Snyder discovered that some of his
wife’s jewelry was missing. Snyder’s wife, Debra Richards, testified that many items were
missing and that she ultimately recovered two pendants and a ring. Both Snyder and Richards
testified that they did not know appellant and had never seen him in their home. On May 23,
2019, appellant sold a gold ring and two gold pendant charms for which he purported to have
authority to sell to the Hampton Trading Post for $91.
After discovering the theft, Snyder spoke to his next-door neighbor, Michael Rolon.
Rolon examined video from his home surveillance system, which showed appellant ringing
Rolon’s doorbell on May 23, 2019. When nobody answered, appellant walked toward
Snyder’s/Richards’ house.
Appellant, through counsel, moved to strike the evidence at the close of the
Commonwealth’s case. Counsel conceded that the evidence considered in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth was sufficient to show that appellant “was in possession and
transacted stolen property.” Counsel stated, however, that “as far as the breaking and entering of
those two charges, I’m making my motion to strike” and “respectfully, on the breaking and
entering only, I would make a motion to strike on those two counts.” The trial court denied
appellant’s motion.
Appellant testified in his defense. According to appellant, he did construction work near
Snyder’s/Richards’ house in May 2019. His cell phone was not working on May 23, so he rang
Rolon’s doorbell to ask to use Rolon’s telephone or Wi-Fi to make a call. He testified that, when
-3-
nobody answered, he also knocked on the door and rang the doorbell at Snyder’s/Richards’
house but did not open the gate.
Appellant testified that when he got home after work, an individual named Jacob
Sampley texted him offering to sell him some jewelry. Appellant stated that he made money
buying various items from Sampley and selling them. Appellant claimed that he went to
Sampley’s house, purchased the jewelry, and then sold the jewelry to the Hampton Trading Post.
According to appellant, he gave Sampley’s name to a detective who was not at the trial who
determined that Sampley was wanted for “a bunch more larcenies and stuff.” Appellant
maintained that he did not know the items he bought from Sampley were stolen and that he never
asked where Sampley got his merchandise. Rather, he explained that Sampley had just separated
from his wife and that appellant believed that Sampley was “just selling off stuff.” Appellant
further admitted to selling VanCamp’s laptop, which he asserted he had also purchased from
Sampley. Finally, appellant conceded to having entered an Alford 3 plea to burglary and five
counts of grand larceny in 2012 in Newport News, for which he received eight years in prison.
Appellant renewed his motion to strike and argued in closing that there was insufficient
evidence connecting appellant to the offenses and that appellant’s alternate explanation for
possessing the stolen items was reasonable. The trial court found defendant guilty of all charges.
The trial court sentenced appellant to twenty years’ incarceration, with seventeen years and six
months suspended, for each breaking and entering conviction; five years’ incarceration, with two
years and six months suspended, for each larceny, third or subsequent offense conviction; ten
years’ incarceration with seven years and six months suspended for the larceny with intent to sell
conviction; and twelve months in jail, with twelve months suspended, for each misdemeanor
3
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
-4-
obtain money by false pretenses conviction, 4 resulting in a total active sentence of twelve years
and six months’ incarceration. Appellant timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. “When
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘the judgment of the trial court is presumed correct
and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Yoder v.
Commonwealth, 298 Va. 180, 181-82 (2019) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460
(2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at
the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204,
228 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017)).
“Rather, the relevant question is, upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Pijor, 294 Va. at 512). “If there is evidentiary
support for the conviction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment,
even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial.’”
Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018) (quoting Banks v. Commonwealth, 67
Va. App. 273, 288 (2017)).
“To sustain a conviction for statutory burglary under Code § 18.2-91, the Commonwealth
must prove: (1) the accused . . . broke and entered the dwelling house in the daytime; and (2) the
accused entered with the intent to commit any felony other than murder, rape, robbery or arson.”
Speller v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 378, 387 (2018) (quoting Robertson v. Commonwealth,
4
The final sentencing orders for appellant’s larceny, third or subsequent offense and
obtaining money by false pretenses convictions erroneously record those convictions as
“Larceny w/Intent to Sell (F).” Consequently, we remand to the trial court solely for a correction
of these clerical errors. See Code § 8.01-428(B); Stevens v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 546,
560 n.5 (2020).
-5-
31 Va. App. 814, 820-21 (2000)). The Commonwealth can establish a prima facie case by
proving that the same person broke into a house and stole goods from that house at the same time
and “proving that the goods were found soon thereafter in the possession of the accused.” Bright
v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 248, 251 (1987).
Larceny is “the wrongful or fraudulent taking of personal goods of some intrinsic value,
belonging to another, without his assent, and with the intention to deprive the owner thereof
permanently.” Bruhn v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 339, 343-44 (2001) (quoting Jones v.
Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 295, 300 (1986)). Under the larceny with intent to sell statute in
place at the time of the offense, 5 Code § 18.2-108.01 proscribes “commit[ting] larceny of
property with a value of $500 or more with the intent to sell or distribute such property.” “It is
well established that once the larceny is established, the unexplained possession of recently
stolen goods permits an inference of larceny by the possessor.” Winston v. Commonwealth, 26
Va. App. 746, 757 (1998) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Finally, to prove
that a defendant obtained money by false pretenses, the Commonwealth must show “(a) that the
accused intended to defraud; (b) that a fraud actually occurred; (c) that the accused used false
pretenses to perpetrate the fraud; and (d) that the false pretenses induced the owner to part with
his property.” Reid v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 745, 748-49 (2016) (quoting Wynne v.
Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 459, 460 (1994)). Evidence that a defendant sold stolen items can
support a conviction for obtaining money by false pretenses. See Parks v. Commonwealth, 221
Va. 492, 498 (1980).
5
The legislature amended Code § 18.2-108.01(A) in 2020 to require the Commonwealth
to prove that the property had a value of $1,000 or more. 2020 Va. Acts. ch. 89. In closing
argument at trial, appellant argued that the value of the goods was insufficient to support his
conviction for larceny with intent to sell. He does not make that argument on appeal, and the
argument is accordingly waived.
-6-
Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that “the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that [he] was the person who broke into” VanCamp’s and Snyder’s/Richards’
houses. He does not challenge that the Commonwealth proved the elements of these offenses.
He contends that no eyewitnesses nor any physical evidence link him to the offenses, nor did
appellant give any confession or make any incriminating statements. He asserts that, aside from
his possession of the stolen goods and evidence that he was in the Snyder’s/Richards’
neighborhood on May 23, 2019, the Commonwealth presented no evidence tying him to the
burglaries. Although he concedes in his appellate brief that unexplained possession of recently
stolen goods permits an inference of larceny by the possessor, he argues that he presented a
plausible explanation for his possession.
“Merely because [a] defendant’s theory of the case differs from that taken by the
Commonwealth does not mean that every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence
has not been excluded. What weight should be given evidence is a matter for the [factfinder] to
decide.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 284, 301 (2017) (alterations in original)
(quoting Haskins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 1, 9 (2004)). “Determining the credibility of
witnesses . . . is within the exclusive province of the [fact finder], which has the unique
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify.” Dalton v. Commonwealth,
64 Va. App. 512, 525 (2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App.
300, 304 (1993)). “In its role of judging witness credibility, the fact finder is entitled to
disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that the accused is lying to
conceal his guilt.” Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 702 (2011) (quoting Marable
v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10 (1998)). “When ‘credibility issues have been
resolved by the [fact finder] in favor of the Commonwealth, those findings will not be disturbed
on appeal unless plainly wrong.’” Towler v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 284, 291 (2011)
-7-
(quoting Corvin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 296, 299 (1991)). The appellate court “faced
with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume—even if it
does not affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in
favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution.” Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277,
296-97 (1992) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 326 (1979)).
Accordingly, it was within the province of the fact finder whether to believe appellant’s
proffered explanation for his possession of stolen goods. In this case, the trial court could
reasonably have disbelieved appellant’s explanation. Appellant’s wholly self-serving testimony
relied on a dubious series of events that a reasonable fact finder could dismiss as too coincidental
to be credible. In other words, the trial court did not plainly err in finding that appellant’s
explanation—that he coincidentally rang Snyder’s/Richards’ doorbell on the same day that his
acquaintance Sampley broke into Snyder’s/Richards’ house, stole several items, and sold those
items to appellant, who then sold them that same day while having no knowledge that they were
stolen—was unreasonable.
Disregarding appellant’s proffered explanation, the Commonwealth presented sufficient
evidence to sustain each of appellant’s convictions. The Commonwealth indisputably
established that someone broke into VanCamp’s house on May 4, 2019 and stole jewelry and a
laptop and that someone broke into Snyder’s/Richards’ house on May 23, 2019 and stole
jewelry. Further, the Commonwealth indisputably proved that on the same days as those
burglaries appellant sold the items stolen from those houses. The Commonwealth proved that
appellant had at least two prior larceny convictions. Under established case law, the trial court
was permitted to infer from appellant’s possession of the stolen goods that he committed the
burglaries and larcenies. Bright, 4 Va. App. at 251. Further, the trial court could reasonably
-8-
conclude that when appellant sold the stolen items to the Hampton Trading Post, falsely
presenting himself as the lawful possessor of the items, he obtained money by false pretenses.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. The
evidence at trial sufficiently proved appellant committed the offenses of conviction. Accordingly,
we affirm the convictions. We remand, however, for the limited purpose of correcting the
sentencing orders to reflect the correct offenses of conviction.
Affirmed and remanded.
-9-