Lonny Nolan Collins v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Duff
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
LONNY NOLAN COLLINS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1965-96-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
JUNE 3, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
William D. Hamblen, Judge
James P. Griffin (Griffin & Griffin, P.C., on
briefs), for appellant.
Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Lonny Nolan Collins appeals his conviction of receiving
stolen property in violation of Code § 18.2-108. He contends
that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to try him for that
offense and that, if it did, the evidence was not sufficient to
support the conviction. We disagree with both contentions, and
we affirm.
The parties are fully conversant with the record in the
cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no
precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary.
Collins first argues that the Circuit Court of Prince
William County had no jurisdiction because the evidence did not
prove that Collins possessed the stolen goods within the county.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Such proof is not required to confer jurisdiction upon a circuit
court. "[A]ll circuit courts have jurisdiction over all felonies
committed in the Commonwealth." Garza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va.
559, 566, 323 S.E.2d 127, 130 (1984). Collins’ argument merely
raises a venue objection. He did not raise the venue objection
at trial, however, and is therefore precluded from raising it on
appeal. See Rule 5A:18.
Collins next argues that the evidence does not support his
conviction. On appeal, the evidence must be viewed in a light
most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Higginbotham v.
Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). A
judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly
wrong or without evidence to support it. See Traverso v.
Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988).
Collins admitted to the police that he had received the camera
from someone he knew to be a thief and that the possession had
been recent. Proof of recent possession of stolen property
allows the trier of fact to infer that the defendant knew it to
be stolen. See Roberts v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 264, 271, 337
S.E.2d 255, 260 (1985).
Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 2 -