Home / Fulltext Opinions / Virginia Court of Appeals / YOUNG v. COMMONWEALTH

YOUNG 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.


YOUNG

v.

COMMONWEALTH


COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Annunziata, Bumgardner and Frank

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

Record No. 0363-03-1

ROBERT JASPER YOUNG

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]BY
JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK

NOVEMBER 12, 2003

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON

Christopher W. Hutton, Judge

Charles E. Haden for appellant.

Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W.
Kilgore,

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Robert Jasper Young (appellant), was convicted in a jury trial
of robbery, in violation of

Code ? 18.2-58, use of a firearm in the commission of robbery,
in violation of Code ? 18.2-53.1,

and wearing a mask in public, in violation of Code ? 18.2-422.
On appeal, he contends the evidence

was not sufficient to convict him of these offenses.
Specifically, he challenges the victim’s

identification of him as the robber. For the reasons stated, we
affirm the convictions.

Appellant concedes trial counsel did not preserve the issue of
sufficiency at trial, but asks

that we invoke the "ends of justice" exception to Rule
5A:18 and consider the issue.[2]
We find this

exception does not apply here.

"The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on
appeal

which was not presented to the trial court." Ohree v.

Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488

(1998) (citing Jacques v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593,

405 S.E.2d 630, 631, (1991)); see also Rule 5A:18.

However, Rule 5A:18 provides for consideration of a ruling by
the

trial court that was not objected to at trial "to enable
the Court of

Appeals to attain the ends of justice." Rule 5A:18. "‘The
ends of

justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly’"
when an

error at trial is "‘clear, substantial and material.’"
Redman v.

Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272

(1997) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 132,

380 S.E.2d 8, 10-11 (1989)). "In order to avail oneself of
the

exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a
miscarriage

of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have

occurred." Id. at 221, 487 S.E.2d at 272 (citing Mounce v.

Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744

(1987)).

["]In order to show that a miscarriage of justice has
occurred, an

appellant must demonstrate more than that the Commonwealth

failed to prove an element of the offense. . . . The
appellant must

demonstrate that he or she was convicted for conduct that was
not

a criminal offense or the record must affirmatively prove that
an

element of the offense did not occur.["] Id. at 221-22, 487
S.E.2d at

272-73 (emphasis in original).

Michaels v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 601, 607-08, 529 S.E.2d
822, 825-26 (2000).

Appellant contends the evidence was not sufficient to prove he
committed the crimes

because the victim testified she could not "be one hundred
percent sure" that appellant was the

masked robber. He does not maintain, nor do we find, any element
of the offenses was disproved

by the evidence nor that the conduct of the perpetrator did not
constitute a crime. He argues,

simply, the identification was not strong enough to prove that
he was the perpetrator.

The Commonwealth’s evidence does not fail to identify
appellant as the perpetrator. In fact,

the victim at one point testified she was "positive"
appellant was the robber. Therefore, the record

includes evidence linking appellant to these crimes. The record
does not "affirmatively prove"

appellant did not commit the offenses. Thus, we conclude no
manifest injustice occurred.

Appellant did not preserve the issue of sufficiency for appeal.
As no exception allows our

review of this issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES:

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

 

[2]While
appellant moved to strike the evidence at the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s

case, he did not renew the motion after presenting his case.
When a defendant elects to present

evidence on his behalf, he waives the right to stand on his
motion to strike the evidence made at

the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case. Spangler v.
Commonwealth, 188 Va. 436, 50

S.E.2d 265 (1948). Appellant also failed to preserve the
sufficiency issue in a motion to set aside

the verdict. See McGee v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 317, 357
S.E.2d 738 (1987).


Scroll To Top