Maxwell v. Commonwealth

1

JASON FRANKLIN MAXWELL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

No. 0693-23-2

Court of Appeals of Virginia

July 30, 2024

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY ROBERT H. MORRISON JUDGE

John A. Terry (Law Office of John A. Terry, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant.

Robert D. Bauer, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares Attorney General; John Beamer, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Beales and Lorish Argued at Richmond, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

MARLA GRAFF DECKER, CHIEF JUDGE

Jason Franklin Maxwell appeals his convictions for grand larceny petit larceny, and property damage. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.^[1] We conclude that the evidence, viewed under the proper standard, establishes that Maxwell committed the crimes. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions.

Background^[2]

In July 2021, Bryan Harris operated a car repair business. On July 19, 2021, James Wilkerson took his Chevrolet Cavalier to the shop to have a "loose tailpipe" inspected. The car was in "good condition," undamaged except for a cracked dashboard and a dent from a prior collision. Wilkerson gave the keys to Harris and left his car in the shop parking lot. Harris placed the keys in his office inside the shop.

While Wilkerson's car was in the shop parking lot, Maxwell visited and asked Harris whether he had any cars for sale. Harris informed him there were none, and Maxwell left.

On July 21, after Maxwell's visit, Harris locked the shop and went on vacation. That weekend, on either July 23 or 24, Harris's brother Marvin dropped his Pontiac off at the shop. When he left his car, its license plates were affixed to its front and rear bumpers. The same weekend, Wilkerson drove past the shop and noticed that his Cavalier was no longer parked outside. He assumed it was inside the shop being repaired.

When Harris returned from vacation on July 25 and went to the shop, the Cavalier was no longer there. Harris did not report the vehicle stolen, however, because he believed Wilkerson had retrieved it using a spare key. In addition, the entrances to the shop were locked.

On July 29, Wilkerson went to the shop and learned that his car was missing. Harris searched his office and discovered that Wilkerson's keys were also gone. After Harris reported the vehicle stolen, police interviewed both Wilkerson and Harris. An investigator with the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office found no signs of "forced entry" into the shop but determined that he could unlock the entrances without a key using a credit card.

On July 31, Sergeant Adams with the Halifax County Sheriff's Office saw Wilkerson's Cavalier traveling on a highway. He attempted to stop the car but it "sped off." The driver led the sergeant on a high-speed pursuit before losing control. The car came to a stop in someone's yard, and Adams saw Maxwell, the Cavalier's driver and sole occupant, get out of the car. Maxwell attempted to flee on foot but was apprehended.

Police had the Cavalier towed to Harris's shop. Wilkerson inspected the car and noticed that yellow stripes had been painted on the sides and trunk. The smell of gas permeated the car due to gas cans in the trunk. Additionally, "some of the air vents" in the dashboard were "busted out" and the radio had been removed. The trunk contained a radio, but Wilkerson did not confirm whether it was the one removed from the dashboard. An insurance company assessed the damage to the Cavalier and paid Wilkerson about $3,000 in compensation.

Police determined that the license plate affixed to the rear bumper of the Cavalier belonged to Marvin's Pontiac. They notified Marvin, who examined his Pontiac at Harris's shop and confirmed that someone had removed his license plate from the rear bumper and replaced it with a different one.

A grand jury indicted Maxwell for burglary, property damage, grand larceny, and two counts of petit larceny. At trial, after the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, Maxwell made a motion to strike the charges. He argued that the evidence failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator. The trial court denied the motion.

Maxwell presented evidence in his defense. He and Jimmy Stouffer testified. Both witnesses were convicted felons.

According to Maxwell, he bought the already-damaged Cavalier from an acquaintance, Shann Hancock. Maxwell denied burglarizing the shop and stealing any property. He testified that in early July 2021, he visited Harris's shop because he wanted to buy a car. He suggested he also contacted Hancock and discussed buying a car from him. On July 28, 2021, Maxwell's own car needed a new taillight, so he drove it to the home of his friend, Jimmy Stouffer, and borrowed some tools to fix it. He said that while working on his car in Stouffer's driveway, Hancock and his girlfriend arrived in Wilkerson's Cavalier. The girlfriend offered to sell the car to Maxwell. Maxwell testified he agreed and followed the couple to another location where they completed the transaction.^[3]

During his testimony, Maxwell also attempted to explain his efforts to flee from police. He stated that on that day, his friend "R.J." was driving while Maxwell accompanied him. Maxwell testified that when Sergeant Adams tried to stop them, R.J. accelerated, exclaiming, "I've got warrants." R.J. lost control of the Cavalier and it "settled in a yard." Maxwell said that R.J. fled on foot.

Maxwell believed that the Cavalier was in "fair condition" when he bought it, although the dashboard was "cracked and leaking" and the "radio . . . wasn't in it." He said that he bought a new radio to replace the missing one and put it in the trunk. He also claimed he received a "bill of sale" proving that he bought the Cavalier from Hancock but had misplaced it and Hancock died before trial.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court denied Maxwell's renewed motion to strike. The jury convicted Maxwell of grand larceny, petit larceny, and property damage. See Code §§ 18.2-95, -96, -137. It acquitted him of burglary and the other charge of petit larceny. He was sentenced to a term of incarceration totaling fifteen years and twelve months, with thirteen years and eight months suspended.

Analysis

On appeal, Maxwell contends that the evidence fails to support his convictions because the Commonwealth did not present any direct evidence of guilt and did not exclude his hypothesis of innocence.^[4]

"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.'" McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va.App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). "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 Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204, 228 (2018)). "Rather, the relevant 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)). "If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, '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.'" McGowan, 72 Va.App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va.App. 149, 161 (2018)).

In conducting this analysis, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Spratley v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 187, 193 (2019). This deferential standard "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'" from that evidence. Vasquez, 291 Va. at 247 (quoting Bowman v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 492, 494 (2015)).

Additionally, "[c]ircumstantial evidence is competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence provided that [it] is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt." Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017) (quoting Dowden v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 459, 468 (2000)). "The reasonable-hypothesis principle 'merely echoes "the standard applicable to every criminal case."'" Commonwealth v. Moseley, 293 Va. 455, 464 (2017) (quoting Vasquez, 291 Va. at 250). "It is 'simply another way of stating that the Commonwealth has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 513 (2003)). Whether an alternative hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is a factual question that will be reversed on appeal only if plainly wrong. Rams v. Commonwealth, 70 Va.App. 12, 28 (2019).

We consider the appellant's arguments in the context of these guiding legal principles.

I. Grand Larceny and Petit Larceny

Larceny is "the wrongful or fraudulent taking of another's property without his permission and with the intent to deprive the owner" of the possession "of that property permanently." Pijor, 294 Va. at 509 (quoting Tarpley v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 251, 256 (2001)). A theft is classified as either grand larceny or petit larceny depending on the value of the goods taken. Compare Code § 18.2-95, with Code § 18.2-96.

Under settled law, once it is established that someone committed a larceny, "the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods permits" a fact finder to infer "larceny by the possessor." Burton v. Commonwealth, 58 Va.App. 274, 284 (2011) ...