Wendell Wyndale Wilson v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2023 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges AtLee, Causey and Friedman
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
WENDELL WYNDALE WILSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0564-22-1 JUDGE RICHARD Y. ATLEE, JR.
MAY 16, 2023
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
Stephen J. Telfeyan, Judge
Michelle C. F. Derrico, Senior Appellate Attorney (Virginia Indigent
Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.
David A. Mick, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
The Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake (“trial court”) convicted Wendell Wyndale
Wilson of criminal contempt in violation of Code § 18.2-456. Wilson challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence, asserting that his failure to comply with a court order was neither willful nor
unreasonable. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On appeal, we recite the facts “in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the
prevailing party in the trial court.” Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 231 (2022)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). Doing so requires us to “discard the
evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413.
credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 323-24 (2018)).
On June 7, 2018, Wilson stood trial for misdemeanor assault and battery on a family
member in violation of Code § 18.2-57.2. The juvenile and domestic relations district court (the
“JDR court”) entered an order on June 7, 2018, deferring disposition of the charge under Code
§ 18.2-57.3 until June 11, 2020. The JDR court conditioned the deferral upon Wilson having no
contact with his wife and completing an anger management course through the Community
Corrections Agency (“CCA”).
On June 6, 2020, the JDR court issued a capias alleging that Wilson had failed to obey a
court order “ordering CCA compliance.” Based on Wilson’s failure to comply with the CCA
condition, the JDR court entered a finding of guilt on the assault and battery charge. It also found
him guilty of contempt.
On August 31, 2020, Wilson appealed both convictions to circuit court and, following
multiple continuances, stood trial on March 14, 2022. CCA office coordinator Nancy Thomas
testified that CCA received Wilson’s paperwork in June 2018, but he did not report to CCA until
January 2020. CCA assigned Wilson a probation officer, and on February 4, 2020, Wilson was
referred to a Batterer’s Intervention Program. CCA directed Wilson to contact the office on March
31, 2020, and to “check[] in” with his probation officer at least once each month. On February 13,
2020, Wilson notified CCA that he was living with his brother; after that date, Wilson did not
communicate with CCA further. On March 11, 2020, CCA left several voicemail messages on his
brother’s phone, but Wilson never responded. Thomas acknowledged that, due to the Covid-19
pandemic, CCA personnel operated through “telephone contact” with probationers in March 2020
because the office had “shut down.”
-2-
Wilson testified that he was incarcerated in Chesapeake City Jail on unrelated charges from
2018 until January 20, 2020. Upon his release, he resumed living with his wife in accordance with
the instructions from his Department of Corrections probation officer. After his CCA probation
officer reminded him of the “no contact” condition, Wilson moved out and slept in his car until he
received permission from the trial court to return home in March 2020. He stated that he called his
CCA probation officer in late February 2020 and early March 2020. Wilson explained that he
inquired about registering for the domestic violence class on February 5, 2020, but he did not have
the means to pay the fee at that time. Although he was employed by the end of February 2020, he
never attended the class or any other domestic violence counseling. Wilson admitted that pandemic
concerns did not prevent CCA from offering the class in February 2020.
The trial court recognized that Wilson made an initial inquiry about the domestic violence
class, but it found that Wilson made no further effort to comply with the JDR court’s directive to
complete the class. The trial court convicted Wilson of contempt in violation of Code § 18.2-456.1
Wilson appeals.
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, Wilson argues that the evidence was insufficient to find him in contempt of court
when his failure to comply with the court order was neither willful nor unreasonable. We disagree.
“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)). “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.’” Id.1
The trial court dismissed Wilson’s appeal of his JDR court conviction for assault and
battery upon the Commonwealth’s motion that the court lacked authority to consider the appeal
under Code § 18.2-57.3(F).
-3-
(alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204, 228 (2018)). “Rather, the
relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting
Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193 (2009)). “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.’” McGowan, 72
Va. App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).
Wilson asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove he violated Code § 18.2-456(5)
because it did not demonstrate he possessed “a willful intent to undermine the authority of the
court” or that he refused unreasonably to comply with the JDR court order. He contends that a
knowing failure to comply with a court directive is insufficient to prove contempt; instead, the
evidence must prove “an intent to disrespect the court.” Wilson maintains that the evidence failed
to prove that the required anger management class was available between February 2020 and the
June 11, 2020 deadline for completion of the class. Wilson contends that the six-month window of
opportunity to complete the domestic violence class was not reasonable due to his incarceration
until January 2020, the pandemic, and his housing and employment issues. In short, he asserts that
the evidence failed to prove “his inability to complete the domestic violence assessment was
intended to interfere with the administration of justice or to embarrass or disrespect the trial court.”2
We disagree.
2
Wilson also argues that he could not complete the class after June 2020 because he
lacked a court referral. He did not make this argument in the trial court, however. Accordingly,
as he raises this argument for the first time on appeal, he has failed to preserve it for appellate
review. Rule 5A:18. “One of the tenets of Virginia’s jurisprudence is that trial counsel must
timely object with sufficient specificity to an alleged error at trial to preserve that error for
appellate review.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 666 (2011). A trial court must be
alerted to the precise issue to which a party objects. See Kelly v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App.
347, 354 (2004). “Although Rule 5A:18 contains exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends
of justice, [Wilson] does not argue these exceptions and we will not invoke them sua sponte.”
-4-
Wilson argued to the trial court that he “had every intention of attempting to get the
Batterer’s Intervention Program done as soon as he c[ould],” but “[p]resumably,” the pandemic
“complicated” his completion of the class. Due to the pandemic, the confusion about the no contact
requirement, and his incarceration resulting in an abbreviated time frame to complete the class by
June 2020, he maintained that “it’s a bit unfair” to find him in contempt for failing to complete the
class.
We review a trial court’s adjudication of contempt for abuse of discretion. Barnhill v.
Brooks, 15 Va. App. 696, 704 (1993). Code § 18.2-456 provides, in pertinent part, that a court may
hold an individual in contempt for “[d]isobedience . . . to any lawful . . . judgment, decree, or order
of the court.” Code § 18.2-456(A)(5).3 “A trial court ‘has the authority to hold [an] offending party
in contempt for acting in bad faith or for willful disobedience of its order.’” Alexander v.
Alexander, 12 Va. App. 691, 696 (1991) (alteration in original) (quoting Carswell v. Masterson, 224
Va. 329, 332 (1982)). This “principle applies to the oral orders, commands and directions of the
court,” as well as written orders. Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va. 520, 537 (1943).
“There is no question that ‘the element of intent’ must be present for a defendant to be found
guilty of contempt.” Abdo v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 468, 476 (2015) (quoting Singleton v.
Commonwealth, 278 Va. 542, 549 (2009)). “Contempt under Virginia law is ‘“an act in disrespect
of the court or its processes, or which obstructs the administration of justice, or tends to bring the
court into disrepute.”’” Id. (quoting Robinson v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 137, 142 (2003)).
“[W]illfulness or recklessness satisfies the intent element necessary for a finding of criminal
Williams v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 341, 347 (2010). Thus, we address only Wilson’s
argument that the evidence failed to prove that he willfully or unreasonably failed to comply
with the court’s directive to complete the CCA domestic violence class.
3
Code § 18.2-456 was amended, effective July 1, 2019, but the relevant language was
unchanged.
-5-
contempt.” Id. at 477. Although “[t]he word [willful] often denotes an act which is intentional, or
knowing, or voluntary, as distinguished from accidental,” the term, “when used in a criminal
statute[,] . . . generally means an act done with a bad purpose; without justifiable excuse; stubbornly,
obstinately, perversely[.]” Id. (second and fifth alteration in original) (quoting Barrett v.
Commonwealth, 268 Va. 170, 183 (2004)).
Often, “‘willfulness’ must be established through circumstances.” Correll v.
Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 311, 325 (2004), aff’d, 269 Va. 3 (2005). “Circumstantial evidence
is as acceptable to prove guilt as direct evidence, and in some cases, such as proof of intent or
knowledge, it is practically the only method of proof.” Abdo, 64 Va. App. at 475-76 (quoting
Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492, 498 (1980)). “Intent may be shown by the circumstances,
including a person’s conduct and statements.” Robertson v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 814,
820 (2000). “While no single piece of evidence may be sufficient, the ‘combined force of many
concurrent and related circumstances, each insufficient in itself, may lead a reasonable mind
irresistibly to a conclusion [of guilt].’” Rams v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 12, 37 (2019)
(alteration in original) (quoting Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 273 (1979)).
Here, the circumstantial evidence supported a rational finding that Wilson acted “without
justifiable excuse” for failing to complete the CCA domestic violence class. Abdo, 64 Va. App.
at 477 (quoting Barrett, 268 Va. at 183). The evidence proved that Wilson knew he was required
to complete the domestic violence class but never attempted to register for it or complete it after
his release from incarceration. Moreover, the evidence proved that he ceased all contact with
CCA after February 13, 2020, despite having an appointment in March 2020 and being instructed
to contact CCA monthly. Viewed as a whole, the evidence supported the trial court’s finding
that Wilson willfully failed to comply with the court’s order to complete the CCA domestic
-6-
violence class. Accordingly, the evidence was competent, credible, and sufficient to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson was guilty of contempt.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
-7-