Northcraft v. Commonwealth

78 Va.App. 563

892 S.E.2d 351

Ronald Dean NORTHCRAFT v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 1067-21-2

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Richmond.

September 26, 2023

Samantha Offutt Thames, Senior Appellate Counsel (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

Ken J. Baldassari, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Malveaux and Causey

OPINION BY JUDGE MARY BENNETT MALVEAUX

A jury convicted Ronald Dean Northcraft ("appellant") of three counts of grand larceny of a motor vehicle, in violation of Code § 18.2-95, five counts of unlawfully obtaining documents from the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"), in violation of Code § 46.2-105.2(A), five counts of making a false statement on an application for a certificate of title, in violation of Code § 46.2-605, one count of money laundering, in violation of Code § 18.2-246.3(A), and one count of attempted money laundering, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-26, -246.3(A). On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to strike a juror for cause, (2) denying his motions to strike the evidence on all charges, and (3) denying his proposed jury instructions. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Virginia's Abandoned Vehicle Process

Code §§ 46.2-1200 through -1207 establish Virginia's abandoned vehicle process ("AVP") allowing applicants to dispose of an abandoned motor vehicle, trailer, or manufactured home left on a highway, public property, or private property. An applicant initiates the process by completing an online application for an abandoned vehicle record request through the DMV's website. After the online application is submitted, the DMV conducts a record search and sends a certified letter to the vehicle's owner or lienholder. See Code § 46.2-1202(A) (directing that "[a]ny person in possession of an abandoned motor vehicle shall initiate with the [DMV], in a manner prescribed by the Commissioner, a search for the owner and/or lienholder of record of the vehicle"). ¹ The notice letter advises the vehicle's owner or lienholder that the AVP is in progress for the vehicle and that they have 15 days from the date of notice to reclaim and remove the vehicle. Code § 46.2-1202(B). If the vehicle remains unclaimed following the 15-day notice period, the owner or lienholder "shall have waived all right, title, and interest" in the vehicle. Id.

After the 15-day reclamation period expires, the applicant seeking title to an abandoned vehicle must post an "intent to auction" notice on the DMV website for at least 21 days. See Code § 46.2-1202.1. Once the 21-day "intent to auction" notice period expires, the applicant may obtain title to the vehicle.

At trial, Alacia Moore, the DMV employee in charge of the agency's AVP, testified about the online record request application as it existed in 2018. ² When an AVP applicant initiated the record request on the DMV's website, the website told the applicant to "[u]se this transaction to ... [o]btain title for or sell an abandoned vehicle ... in your possession." After viewing this information, applicants then entered the vehicle's Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN"). ³ They next chose from three options indicating that they were "in possession of a motor vehicle" that "[1] [w]as left unattended on public property for more than 48 hours in violation of a state law or local ordinance[,] [2] has remained for more than 48 hours on private property without the consent of the property's owner ... [,] [or] [3] was left unattended on the shoulder of a primary highway." To continue with the application, the applicant had to then certify that the information they provided in their application was "true and correct." Following this, after the applicant paid a fee, the DMV would process the transaction, and a record request receipt was generated that contained the vehicle's information.

After an applicant completed the online record request application, the DMV required an applicant to produce three documents at a DMV customer service center in order to process a title for vehicles obtained via the AVP: (1) an application of certificate for title, (2) a vehicle removal certificate, and (3) the record request receipt. The application for certificate of title is the application form used to apply for the title to an abandoned vehicle. This form requires an applicant to list the vehicle owner's contact information. It also includes a certification section where the applicant affirms that "all information presented in this form is true and correct, that any documents I ... have presented to DMV are genuine, and that the information included in all supporting documentation is true and accurate." The vehicle removal certificate is the transfer of ownership document used for abandoned vehicles. The top section of the form requires the applicant to state where the vehicle is located and the address of the "person/authorized agent in possession of vehicle."

After an applicant presented a record request receipt, an application for certificate of title, and a vehicle removal certificate, a DMV customer service representative processed the documents, collected any fees, and gave the vehicle's title over to the applicant. Once an applicant was issued the title, the DMV recorded that individual as the owner of the vehicle.

When processing these documents, the DMV customer service representative did not have access to the information provided on the online record request application. Moore testified that the DMV's role in the AVP was "just to implement the process" and that the DMV did not "have a role in making sure that the person who applies is who is allowed to apply."

Moore further testified that anyone could use the AVP "[a]s long as they are in possession and meet the requirements" and that the program was not limited to local governments. But Moore also testified that it was her understanding that if a vehicle was abandoned on public property, the program was intended for local governments’ use. She acknowledged that in 2018 there was no information provided during the process indicating that the AVP for vehicles on public property was limited solely to local governments. ⁴

The Offenses

In May and early June of 2018, appellant completed an online record request application for five vehicles: a 2006 Kia Optima, a 2016 Mini Cooper, a 2014 Chevrolet Camaro, a 2009 Mini Cooper, and a 2012 Toyota Camry. On his applications, appellant stated that the vehicles were respectively located on the following public streets: 5400 Montbrook Circle; 2234 Park Avenue; 700 North Davis Street; "Grove Avenue/Roseneath"; and "Hancock Street." On each online record request application, appellant listed his reason for possession as "possession of a motor vehicle ... that was left unattended on public property for more than 48 hours in violation of a state law or local ordinance."

Nathaniel White, Rebecca Shaw, Austin McCune, Billy Gilmore, and Altonia Foster were the owners of vehicles connected with appellant's online record request applications. From May through July 2018, these individuals usually parked their vehicles on the public streets listed on appellant's online record request applications. ⁵ At least four of the owners did not have current registration stickers displayed on their vehicles during this time. In July 2018, four of the owners noticed that the vehicles were not where they usually parked them. ⁶ Three of the vehicles were never returned to their owners, and one vehicle was returned to its owner months after it went missing.

The DMV sent notice letters to each owner at their last known address informing them that appellant was claiming that he was in possession of their vehicles and was seeking to have them declared abandoned. Each individual testified that they had not given appellant possession or ownership of their vehicle.

On July 6, 2018, appellant filled out an application for certificate of title and vehicle removal certificate for the 2006 Kia Optima and 2016 Mini Cooper, and on July 12, 2018 he filled out these same forms for the 2014 Chevrolet Camaro, the 2009 Mini Cooper, and the 2012 Toyota Camry. On the applications for certificate of title, appellant listed himself as the owner of the vehicles. On all five vehicle removal certificates, appellant listed himself as the "person/authorized agent in possession of vehicle."

On July 6, 2018, Shakeima Chisholm, a DMV employee, processed appellant's applications for certificates of title for the 2006 Kia Optima and 2016 Mini Cooper. Chisholm thought it was unusual that appellant possessed two abandoned vehicles and asked him if he worked for a towing company or dealership. Appellant responded that he did not and said that the vehicles had been left on his property. Chisholm processed the applications and gave appellant the titles to the two vehicles. Although Chisholm thought it "odd that it was two abandoned vehicles on someone's property," she testified that if someone had all the necessary paperwork to complete the application for certificate of title, she was unable to reject the application even if she thought "something might not be right on the form."

On July 12, 2018, Ebony Bell, another DMV employee, processed appellant's applications for certificates of title for the 2014 Chevrolet Camaro, the 2012 Toyota Camry, and the 2009 Mini Cooper. Bell thought that appellant's applications were "unusual" because he used the AVP for three vehicles all at once and because the vehicles were all less than ten years old. In her experience, the AVP was used "for much older vehicles being left on the property." She asked appellant if the vehicles were located on his property, and he said yes and that the vehicles "were just left on his property." Before she gave appellant the titles, she spoke with her manager and was told to process the applications...