Don't Miss
Home / Fulltext Opinions / Virginia Court of Appeals / RANDOLPH v. COMMONWEALTH

RANDOLPH v. COMMONWEALTH




NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal
revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify
the Virginia Court of Appeals.


RANDOLPH

v.

COMMONWEALTH


COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Hodges

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

Record No. 2162-02-1

JUSTIN LENARD RANDOLPH

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]BY
JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES

OCTOBER 14, 2003

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH

Johnny E. Morrison, Judge

T. George Underwood for appellant.

Jennifer Franklin, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore,

Attorney General; H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General,

on brief), for appellee.

Justin Lenard Randolph, appellant herein, appeals his conviction
of grand larceny. On

appeal, appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to
support the conviction. Finding sufficient

evidence to support the grand larceny indictment, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment of conviction.

BACKGROUND

"On appeal, ‘we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth,

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible
therefrom.’" Archer v. Commonwealth,

26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997) (citation
omitted). "The credibility of the

witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters
solely for the fact finder who has the

opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is
presented." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20

Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995).

In this light, the evidence adduced at trial established that
the Reverend Nancy Lee Jose’s

car was stolen. Thirty-five days later, appellant was driving
the car and was arrested for its theft.

Appellant told the arresting officer he did not know it was
stolen, he had borrowed the car to go

to the store, and he was returning home after buying cigarettes.

At trial, appellant and his girlfriend, a convicted felon,
testified that appellant’s brother,

Stanley Hill, had arrived at appellant’s home, driving the
stolen car, stating he had "a new car."

They both testified that shortly before appellant’s arrest Hill
gave appellant the keys to go to the

store to buy cigarettes. On rebuttal, Hill denied driving the
car or being at appellant’s home that

night. Instead, Hill testified that his cousin, Sean Ricks, was
at appellant’s house with the car and

that Ricks acquired the car in exchange for drugs.

ANALYSIS

When a defendant challenges on appeal the sufficiency of the

evidence to sustain his convictions, it is the appellate court’s
duty

to examine the evidence that tends to support the convictions
and

to permit the convictions to stand unless they are plainly wrong
or

without evidentiary support. If there is evidence to support the

convictions, 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.

Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 255 Va. 516, 520, 499 S.E.2d 263, 265
(1998) (citations omitted).

The trial court was entitled to disbelieve appellant’s assertion
that he did not steal the

vehicle or that he did not know it was stolen. "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." Marable v.
Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10, 500

S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998). Further, appellant’s girlfriend was a
convicted felon. The trial court

could discount her testimony as well. Code ? 19.2-269.

The trial court had before it the uncontroverted evidence that
appellant was in recent, see

Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 188, 269 S.E.2d 352 (1980)
("recent" possession four

weeks after theft), and Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 201,
169 S.E.2d 577 (1964) ("recent

possession" two-and-one-half months after theft), and
exclusive possession of the stolen vehicle.

"Unexplained or falsely explained possession of recently
stolen goods is a fact sufficient for the

judge or jury to infer that the person in possession of the
stolen goods was the thief." Lew v.

Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 353, 358, 457 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1995)
(citing Montgomery,

221 Va. at 190, 269 S.E.2d at 353). The trial court rejected
appellant’s evidence in explanation

for his possession of the vehicle. Therefore, given appellant’s
recent, exclusive, and falsely

explained possession of the vehicle, the trial court could find
beyond a reasonable doubt that

appellant was the criminal agent.

Accordingly, the evidence supports the grand larceny conviction
and the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES:

[1]Pursuant to
Code ? 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.


Scroll To Top