Leroy Ricky Etheridge v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton
Argued by teleconference
LEROY RICKY ETHERIDGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1487-97-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
JUNE 9, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
Robert W. Curran, Judge
(Sa'ad El-Amin; El-Amin & Crawford, on
brief), for appellant. 1
Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Leroy Ricky Etheridge (defendant) was convicted on April 3,
1996 of the first degree murder of his estranged wife, Mary
Etheridge. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient
to convict him of first degree murder. 2 Because the evidence was
sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm.
The parties are fully conversant with the record and because
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
Counsel for appellant requested oral arguments in this case
be moved in order to accommodate a conflict in his schedule. The
Court rescheduled the case to a mutually convenient time.
Appellant's counsel still failed to appear. We decided the case
on appellee's oral argument, the briefs and the record.
2
In the alternative, defendant claims the evidence proved
only that he committed second degree murder. This argument was
not presented to the trial court until the sentencing hearing
and, as such, was untimely. We will not consider claims raised
for the first time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18; Jacques v.
Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991).
this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no
recitation of the facts is necessary.
Code § 18.2-32 defines first degree murder as:
Murder, other than capital murder, by poison,
lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by
any willful, deliberate, and premeditated
killing, or in the commission of, or attempt
to commit, arson, rape, forcible sodomy,
inanimate object sexual penetration, robbery,
burglary or abduction, except as provided in
§ 18.2-31.
We will reverse the conviction only if it is "plainly wrong or
without evidence to support it." Code § 8.01-680.
Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he
murdered his wife. To the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly
proved defendant's guilt. Defendant was seen fighting with her
at church on the Sunday before she was murdered. He left many
frantic phone calls at her home and work phones asking her to let
him into the home, to leave the doors unlocked and generally
asking to see her. Defendant called his wife's employer, Joseph
Kertesz, and told Mr. Kertesz he was going to try to get into the
house. Defendant was seen exiting the victim's house the day
before the body was found and his car was seen in the driveway.
A letter from him apologizing for "all the pain I cause you all
the hurt" was found next to his wife's dead body. Most
- 2 -
importantly, while defendant was in jail pending trial he
threatened his nephew, who was also incarcerated, that his
mother, the victim's sister, was "next." These facts provide
sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Because the trial court's decision was founded in evidence
sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm.
Affirmed.
- 3 -