Gregorio Corona Valderama, a/k/a Juan Carlos Becerra-Reyes v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2024 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Beales, O’Brien and Raphael
UNPUBLISHED
Argued at Lexington, Virginia
GREGORIO CORONA VALDERAMA, A/K/A
JUAN CARLOS BECERRA-REYES
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0385-23-3 JUDGE RANDOLPH A. BEALES
JUNE 11, 2024
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRY COUNTY
G. Carter Greer, Judge
Samantha Offutt Thames, Senior Appellate Attorney (Virginia
Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.
Kelly L. Sturman, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
The Circuit Court of Henry County convicted Gregorio Corona Valderama (also known as
Juan Carlos Becerra-Reyes) of distributing between 10 and 100 grams of methamphetamine in
violation of Code § 18.2-248.1 On appeal, Valderama contends that both the suspected drugs
collected by the police and the certificate of analysis identifying the drugs were inadmissible
because the Commonwealth failed to establish the requisite chain of custody. In addition,
Valderama challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
I. BACKGROUND
“In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, [as] the prevailing party at trial.” Gerald v.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
1
The trial court dismissed a separate charge for possession with intent to distribute over
100 grams of methamphetamine arising from an unrelated incident.
Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018) (quoting Scott v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 380, 381
(2016)). “This principle requires us to ‘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 to be drawn therefrom.’” Kelley v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 463, 467-68
(2015) (quoting Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492, 498 (1980)).
The Commonwealth presented evidence at trial that on October 30, 2020, Special Agent
Patrick Meade of the Virginia State Police’s Sixth Division, along with three other investigators,
met a confidential informant, James Hairston, as part of an undercover narcotics investigation of
Valderama, a suspected methamphetamine dealer. Special Agent Meade testified that he and the
other investigators met Hairston at “a predetermined meet location,” where Hairston called
Valderama and agreed to meet him outside a nearby restaurant to purchase two ounces of
methamphetamine. Special Agent Meade explained how he searched Hairston prior to the
undercover drug transaction, and he determined that Hairston did not have any contraband on him.
Special Agent Meade then gave Hairston $1,600 in cash to make the controlled purchase.2 Task
Force Officers Todd Farris and Nick Samuels of the Drug Enforcement Administration similarly
testified that, prior to the undercover drug transaction, they searched Hairston’s vehicle, and they
2
Special Agent Meade acknowledged that he did not recall exactly how he searched
Hairston. He testified that, before conducting a controlled drug purchase, he typically searches a
confidential informant’s
person, their pockets, their front pockets, back pockets, if they
happen to have a jacket on, anything like that. We even go to the
point of searching their socks and their shoes, just checking
anything where they could have any type of contraband, whether it
be a weapon, money, knife, something to that effect. So we just
search their person.
-2-
also did not find any contraband.3 In addition, Task Force Officer Jonathan Cox of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives testified that, prior to the undercover drug transaction,
he gave Hairston a video-recording device and a secondary device that transmitted an audio
recording to the investigators in real time.4 Hairston testified that, after placing the video-recording
device in his vehicle, he drove directly to the restaurant to meet Valderama. The investigators then
followed Hairston to the restaurant and parked nearby, monitoring the transmission from the
audio-recording device in real time.
The Commonwealth introduced into evidence at trial footage from the video-recording
device in Hairston’s vehicle that captured the undercover drug transaction and Hairston’s
movements to and from the restaurant parking lot. Hairston testified that, after he parked outside
the restaurant and called Valderama, Valderama came out of the restaurant and got into the front
passenger seat of Hairston’s vehicle. Footage from the recording device showed that, after the two
exchanged pleasantries, Hairston asked Valderama, “You got them all?” Valderama replied, “I got
it, yeah.” Valderama then removed a package wrapped in green tape from the breast pocket of his
jacket and handed it to Hairston, assuring him that the package contained “two” and was “good.”
Hairston paid Valderama with the cash provided by Special Agent Meade, and Hairston placed the
package of suspected drugs in the center console of his vehicle. Hairston testified that the package
had “like a wrapping around it,” and he maintained that “once it was set down, I never touched it
3
Officer Farris and Officer Samuels also acknowledged that they did not recall exactly
how they searched Hairston’s vehicle. Officer Farris noted that, when searching a vehicle for
contraband generally, “I search anywhere something that could be reasonably, you know, hidden
either before or after the buy.” Officer Samuels explained, “We search the compartments inside
the vehicle, like the console, glove box, trunk, up under the seats, the compartments on the doors,
. . . under the floor mats. If there is anything inside the vehicle, we look through that.”
4
Officer Cox testified that the recording device could not be manipulated, that he did not
instruct Hairston how to turn the recording device on or off, and that he later downloaded the
footage from the recording device. Hairston confirmed that he did not know how to turn the
recording device on and off.
-3-
again.” The video footage showed that Valderama told Hairston that he would call him later about a
“kilo of cocaine.” Hairston testified that, once Valderama got out of his vehicle, he drove directly
“[b]ack to the meeting spot” without making any stops and waited for the investigators who had
been following him to arrive.
Hairston testified that the investigators searched him again after they regrouped. Officer
Cox testified that, after retrieving the recording device from Hairston’s vehicle, he searched
Hairston’s vehicle and found no contraband. Special Agent Meade similarly testified that he
searched Hairston again, and he did not find any contraband or “any leftover money.” Hairston
confirmed that the investigators “patted everything I had on” and “searched everything” both before
and after the undercover drug transaction.
At trial, Special Agent Meade detailed the manner in which he handled and processed the
evidence during the investigation. He testified, “I took custody of the suspected drugs that day.
They was wrapped in green duct tape. I take that and secure that. I notate that and the time I was
able to receive that back from the -- Mr. Hairston.” Special Agent Meade stated that he then put the
package containing the suspected drugs “in an evidence bag and sealed that evidence bag.” He also
marked the sealed evidence bag with his initials and a unique case number before placing the sealed
evidence bag in his locked patrol vehicle. He explained, “The bags have a specific number assigned
to them, which I put in my report and I also put on my control purchase checklist which match.”
Special Agent Meade then transported the sealed evidence bag to an evidence locker in the
police station. He later retrieved the sealed evidence bag from the evidence locker, stating,
“Sergeant Dennis McBride removed it from the locker and it was given to me, and I was there
-4-
present.”5 Noting that the sealed evidence bag was in the same condition as when he originally
found it, Special Agent Meade then mailed the sealed evidence by certified mail to a state
laboratory for testing. Meade maintained that he did not open the package or manipulate or alter
its contents before sending it to the state laboratory.
The sealed evidence bag was later received by a forensic analyst with the Virginia
Department of Forensic Science for testing. After examining the crystal-like substance from the
evidence bag, the forensic analyst produced a certificate of analysis documenting the results of her
testing. “Item 1” on the certificate of analysis was described as “[o]ne plastic bag wrapped in green
tape which contained one ziplock bag which contained off-white crystalline substance.” According
to the certificate of analysis, the bag contained 56.845 grams of methamphetamine.
At trial, Special Agent Meade identified Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 (the plastic bags
containing a crystal-like substance). He testified that the evidence bag bore his initials and the
unique case number associated with his investigation. He also identified the package as the one he
collected from Hairston’s vehicle and then mailed to the state laboratory for testing although the
package was no longer wrapped in the green painter’s tape. Meade explained that “the green
painter’s tape had been removed to open it up to be analyzed” by the forensic analyst. The
Commonwealth also sought to introduce Exhibit 4 (the certificate of analysis).
Valderama objected to the introduction of both exhibits, arguing that they were inadmissible
because the Commonwealth failed to establish the requisite chain of custody of the drugs. Counsel
for Valderama asserted that, given Special Agent Meade’s testimony that the package was no longer
5
Sergeant McBride testified that he did not specifically recall retrieving the evidence for
Special Agent Meade. While there was nothing on the package indicating that he was the
individual who retrieved the evidence, Sergeant McBride noted, “Special Agent Meade would
have placed this in the temporary locker at the time he seized it, and I would have retrieved it for
him to send it to the lab for exam.” Sergeant McBride also stated that he was the only individual
who could have retrieved the package at that time, and he confirmed that he did not alter,
manipulate, or change the contents of the package in any way.
-5-
wrapped in green tape, the package must have been “altered and changed in some way since it has
been packaged.” In addition, counsel for Valderama argued that, given Sergeant McBride’s
testimony that he did not recall handling the items in Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2, it was possible
that the suspected drugs in Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 and those identified in the certificate of
analysis were not the drugs Special Agent Meade collected from Hairston’s vehicle.
The trial court found that “it really doesn’t make that much difference” whether Sergeant
McBride recalled retrieving the package from the evidence locker and giving it to Meade because
“Special Agent Meade testified that Sergeant McBride retrieved the item and handed it to him, and
that he then mailed it in certified mail, return receipt requested, to the lab. And when he mailed it, it
was -- it had not been tampered with.” The trial court credited Sergeant McBride’s testimony that
“he never opened the package, didn’t alter or change it” before Special Agent Meade sent it to the
state laboratory for testing. The trial court concluded that the Commonwealth satisfied its “burden
to prove chain of custody and the Court will admit the item as Commonwealth’s number 2.” The
trial court also admitted Commonwealth’s Exhibit 4, the certificate of analysis.
After the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Valderama moved to strike the evidence, arguing
that it was insufficient to prove that he sold Hairston the drugs admitted at trial because the evidence
failed to exclude his alternate hypothesis of innocence that Hairston already possessed those drugs
before the transaction and afterward claimed he purchased them from Valderama. The trial court
denied the motion and Valderama’s subsequent renewed motion on the same grounds. During his
closing argument, Valderama reiterated that the evidence failed to exclude his alternate hypothesis
of innocence that Hairston might have concealed the drugs in his vehicle before the transaction and
later told police that he purchased them from Valderama.
Describing this matter as “an airtight case on behalf of the Commonwealth,” the trial court
found that the investigators thoroughly searched Hairston and his vehicle both before and after the
-6-
undercover drug transaction and did not find any drugs. The trial court noted that, although the
investigators did not personally see the controlled purchase occur, video footage obtained from the
recording device in Hairston’s vehicle showed Valderama “pulling out a package from inside his
jacket and putting it down on the console, and when he did that, he said that’s two.” The trial court
further noted that the video showed Hairston handing Valderama “a huge wad of bills equaling
sixteen hundred dollars.” The trial court remarked that “this was the clearest video surveillance of a
drug transaction that I have ever seen. And I’ve seen quite a few. The audio was perfect. The
Court could hear every word that was said.” The trial court then found Valderama guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of distributing between 10 and 100 grams of methamphetamine in violation of
Code § 18.2-248. Valderama now appeals the trial court’s judgment to this Court.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Admissibility of Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4
On appeal to this Court, Valderama argues, “The trial court erred in admitting
Commonwealth trial exhibits 2 and 4, as the evidence failed to establish a chain of custody.”
This Court has previously stated, “The determination on a chain of custody challenge lies
within the trial court’s broad discretion and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of
that discretion.” Pope v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 486, 511 (2012). “Under this deferential
standard, a ‘trial judge’s ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees;’
only in those cases where ‘reasonable jurists could not differ’ has an abuse of discretion
occurred.” Campos v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 690, 702 (2017) (quoting Thomas v.
Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 741, 753, adopted upon reh’g en banc, 45 Va. App. 811 (2005)).
This Court has consistently held, “[W]here there is mere speculation that contamination or
tampering could have occurred, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit the evidence and let what
doubt there may be go to the weight of the evidence.” Jeter v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 733,
-7-
739 (2005) (quoting Reedy v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 386, 391 (1990)). Furthermore, the
Supreme Court has explained that “a chain of custody is properly established when the
Commonwealth’s evidence affords reasonable assurance that the exhibits at trial are the same
and in the same condition as they were when first obtained.” Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va.
459, 469 (1999).
Here, the record demonstrates that the Commonwealth proved “every ‘vital link in the
chain of possession.’” Hargrove v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 545, 554 (2009) (quoting
Alvarez v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 768, 777 (1997)). Special Agent Meade testified that he
collected the package wrapped in green tape from Hairston’s vehicle and placed the contents in
an evidence bag. Meade then sealed the bag, marked his initials on the bag, marked a unique
case number on the bag, and then placed the bag in his locked patrol vehicle. Special Agent
Meade also testified that he then transported the evidence to the police station and placed it in a
secure evidence locker. He recounted that Sergeant McBride later retrieved the evidence from
the locker at his request and gave it to him. Finally, Special Agent Meade recalled mailing the
evidence to the state laboratory for testing. Subsequent forensic testing established that the
package contained methamphetamine.
While Sergeant McBride did not remember handling the specific items described in
Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2, Special Agent Meade testified that Sergeant McBride retrieved the
sealed evidence bag from the evidence locker at Meade’s request. See Anderson v.
Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 704, 717 (2006) (“A court need not hear, however, from every
witness who physically handled the samples for the certificate to be admissible.”). Sergeant
McBride then handed the bag to Special Agent Meade before Meade mailed the evidence to the
state laboratory. In addition, Special Agent Meade testified that he did not open the package and
that he did not manipulate or alter its contents before sending it to the state laboratory. Meade
-8-
acknowledged that the package marked as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 was no longer wrapped in
green tape, but he explained that the state laboratory had removed the green tape from the
package during forensic testing. Furthermore, the certificate of analysis reflects that the forensic
analyst received and examined the contents of “Item 1,” which were described as “[o]ne plastic
bag wrapped in green tape which contained one ziplock bag which contained off-white crystalline
substance.” Therefore, the Commonwealth’s evidence provided “‘reasonable assurance’ that the
evidence obtained by the police was the same evidence tested.” Anderson, 48 Va. App. at 717(quoting Vinson, 258 Va. at 469). Consequently, we certainly cannot say that the trial court
abused its discretion by admitting Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Valderama also argues on appeal to this Court, “The trial court erred in denying the motion
to strike the charge of distribution in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-248, where the
Commonwealth failed to prove that Mr. Valderama distributed a controlled substance.”
Highlighting Hairston’s “unfettered access to his car,” Valderama contends that the Commonwealth
“failed to prove that the bundle of narcotics came from” him. Valderama further contends that the
Commonwealth failed to exclude his reasonable hypothesis of innocence that Hairston “clearly had
the time prior to the sale to hide any manner of narcotics in his car, and time after the sale as he
drove back to their meeting location alone to pull those hidden drugs from the car.”
“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.”’” Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204, 228 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting
Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017)). “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. (alteration in original) (quoting Pijor, 294 Va. at 512). “Rather, the relevant
-9-
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)).
This Court has consistently held, “Whether an alternate hypothesis of innocence is
reasonable is a question of fact and, therefore, is binding on appeal unless plainly wrong.” Lucas
v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 334, 348 (2022) (quoting Emerson v. Commonwealth, 43
Va. App. 263, 277 (2004)). As the Supreme Court has emphasized, “[T]he factfinder ultimately
remains responsible for weighing the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Moseley, 293 Va. 455, 464
(2017). “In that capacity, the factfinder determines which reasonable inferences should be drawn
from the evidence, and whether to reject as unreasonable the hypotheses of innocence advanced
by a defendant.” Id.Here, a rational factfinder could reject Valderama’s claim that Hairston might have
concealed the package containing the suspected drugs in his vehicle before the undercover drug
transaction and then accused Valderama of selling the drugs to him. As this Court has often
stated, “Determining the credibility of witnesses . . . is within the exclusive province of the
[factfinder], which has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they
testify.” Dalton v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 512, 525 (2015) (first alteration in original)
(quoting Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 300, 304 (1993)). At trial, Hairston testified that he
purchased the package containing “two ounces of meth” from Valderama. Consistent with
Hairston’s testimony, the video footage of the undercover drug transaction clearly showed that
Valderama handed Hairston a package wrapped in green. The video footage also supported
Hairston’s testimony that he drove to and from the restaurant to conduct the controlled purchase
without stopping or removing any items from his vehicle.
- 10 -
In addition, Special Agent Meade testified that he and the other investigators carefully
searched Hairston and his vehicle before the undercover drug transaction. The investigators
confirmed that Hairston did not possess any contraband before meeting with Valderama. The
investigators then searched Hairston and his vehicle for contraband after the undercover drug
transaction, and they only found the package containing the suspected drugs — which the
Commonwealth later introduced into evidence at trial. Therefore, we certainly cannot say that
the trial court was plainly wrong or without credible evidence in rejecting Valderama’s alternate
hypothesis of innocence that Hairston might have concealed the package containing the drugs in
his vehicle before the undercover drug transaction and later accused Valderama of selling these
drugs to him. Cf. Maust v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 687, 705 (2023) (en banc) (holding that
“lapses in police surveillance or the presence of other individuals during controlled buys do not
render the evidence insufficient”). Consequently, given all of the testimony and evidence in the
record, we definitely cannot say that no rational factfinder could have found the evidence
sufficient to support Valderama’s conviction.
III. CONCLUSION
In short, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2
and Exhibit 4 because the Commonwealth established the requisite chain of custody for the drugs.
In addition, the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude that
Valderama distributed between 10 and 100 grams of methamphetamine in violation of Code
§ 18.2-248. Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and
uphold Valderama’s conviction.
Affirmed.
- 11 -