COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Russell, AtLee and Senior Judge Haley

Argued by videoconference

JAMIE ALLEN SEAMSTER

MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY

v. Record No. 1193-19-2 JUDGE JAMES. W. HALEY, JR.

JULY 13, 2021

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HALIFAX COUNTY

Kimberley S. White, Judge

Heath L. Sabin (Sabin Law Office, P.C., on brief), for appellant.

Timothy J. Huffstutter, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. 

Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Jamie Allen Seamster of receiving or 

buying stolen goods, possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, obtaining 

money by false pretenses, selling stolen property valued at under $200, possession of 

ammunition for a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, possession of a firearm while 

possessing a Schedule II controlled substance, and possession of cocaine. On appeal, Seamster

argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of both possession of a firearm by a felon and 

possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of the double jeopardy clause where the two 

charges “arose out of the same occurrence, and factual pattern, and were not separate incidents of 

possession.” He also argues that the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to convict 

him of possession of a firearm by a felon “and/or” possession of ammunition by a felon where he

did not have possession, either actual or constructive, of any 

firearm or ammunition, had no knowledge of a firearm and/or 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

ammunition being on the premises, and another person was person

[sic]; and not all of firearms recovered were testified to have been 

designed to expel a projectile by means of an explosion.

Finally, Seamster contends that the trial court erred in finding that the evidence was 

sufficient to prove that he possessed a firearm while in possession of a Schedule I or II controlled 

substance “when the evidence did not establish that [he] was in possession of a controlled 

substance and did not establish[] that he possessed a firearm.” Finding that the convictions for 

both possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony and possession of 

ammunition after having been convicted of a felony violate the double jeopardy clause, we

reverse and remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the convictions and sentences 

for possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition in a manner consistent with this 

opinion. See Groffel v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 681, 685 (2019), aff’d, 299 Va. 271 

(2020). Because on remand, the Commonwealth must elect one conviction and sentence for 

Seamster’s violation of Code § 18.2-308.2, for the reasons stated below, we consider the 

sufficiency of the evidence and find that the evidence was sufficient to support both convictions. 

We also find that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Seamster possessed a firearm while in 

possession of cocaine.

Background

“In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.” McGowan v. 

Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 516 (2020) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 

472 (2018)). “In doing so, we discard any of appellant’s conflicting evidence, and regard as true

all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that may reasonably be 

drawn from that evidence.” Id. (quoting Gerald, 295 Va. at 473).
- 3 -

In October and November 2017, Lawrence Bradshaw (Lawrence) was staying 

temporarily at a rehabilitation facility. While he was there, his daughters, Scottie Bradshaw 

(Scottie) and Kelly Bradshaw (Kelly) maintained their father’s house in South Boston. On 

November 2, 2017, the family saw that a basement window was broken at the house, and a small 

oil lamp was near the window. Scottie and Kelly walked through the house with Halifax County 

Sheriff’s Investigator Sam Edmonds. They pointed out items that were missing from the house, 

including bank bags containing paper money, coins, and “old money” Lawrence’s grandfather 

had given him. Also missing were Crown Royal Bags containing coins, a television, a small 

“saloon gun,” and five rifles — three “30/30” Winchester rifles, one .22 Winchester rifle, and a 

.22 caliber Henry rifle. Three of the Winchester rifles were commemorative. In addition, an 

“[H]ombre” six-shooter pistol was taken. Further, a National Rifle Association (NRA) 

backpack, assorted jewelry — including watches, rings, necklaces, and bracelets — collectible 

swords, and .22 caliber ammunition were missing. Scottie and Kelly testified that no one else 

had permission to enter the house or remove any items from the residence. Scottie stated that she 

knew Seamster and he dated her former good friend, Karen Conner.

Edmonds learned that someone had used “old money” for a purchase at a gas station. On 

November 3, 2017, he reviewed the surveillance video from the gas station and recognized 

Seamster as the person who passed the old currency. Edmonds also identified Seamster’s 

vehicle in the video. Seamster had left a business card at the gas station that Edmonds 

recognized as a business associated with Seamster. Edmonds obtained the old currency from the 

gas station and showed it to Lawrence, who stated that it looked like money that was in his 

collection. Edmonds also determined that on October 31, 2017, Seamster had pawned a gold 

bracelet with a charm or medallion at a local pawn shop. Edmonds confiscated the items, which

Lawrence identified as belonging to him.
- 4 -

On November 9, 2017, at 7:24 a.m., Edmonds and other officers executed a search 

warrant at Seamster’s residence. At the time of the search, Chris Anderson (Chris), Seamster’s 

cousin, was in the basement of the residence. Edmonds told Seamster that a house in the county 

had been burglarized, and he determined that Seamster had passed currency that was consistent 

with some of the money stolen in the burglary. He also told Seamster that he recovered some of 

the burglary victim’s stolen jewelry that Seamster had pawned. Edmonds advised Seamster that

they were searching for stolen items, some of which were as small as a buffalo nickel and 

included weapons. He asked Seamster if he could direct them to any stolen or possibly stolen 

items in his house. Edmonds testified that Seamster cooperated and identified “things that he

believed possibly could have been what [they] w[ere] looking for.”

Seamster first directed Edmonds to a bag labeled “NRA” that was on the living room

floor, which Seamster said Chris had brought to the residence and could “possibly” have been

stolen. The NRA bag contained a small revolver pistol that matched the description of one of the 

firearms that Lawrence had reported as stolen and Crown Royal bags containing old coins. 

Edmonds told Seamster that the items were similar to some of the stolen items and asked 

Seamster if there was anything else in the house that was possibly stolen. Seamster led Edmonds

to a guest bedroom closet and pointed to a blanket wrapped in tape and told Edmonds that there 

were “weapons inside that blanket.”1 Edmonds also saw in plain view in the closet another rifle 

beside the blanket, and a sword. Inside the blanket were commemorative rifles that belonged to 

Lawrence and some loose ammunition. In a subsequent interview, Seamster told Edmonds that 

he had helped wrap the rifles in the blanket.

1 On cross-examination, when asked if Seamster said weapons were “actually inside” the 

blanket, Edmonds testified that if he “recalled correctly,” Seamster indicated that he “knew 

weapons were in that blanket,” and he “helped wrap . . . that blanket up.” Edmonds also stated 

that he “could be wrong” and “could have forgotten.”
- 5 -

Seamster led Edmonds to what he identified as his bedroom. There, he told Edmonds 

that a weapon was inside his dresser that “possibly could have been stolen.” In the second 

dresser drawer, Edmonds found a loaded SCCY Cobra .380 caliber pistol and a small gun that 

Lawrence later identified as his “saloon gun,” that was smaller than a Derringer. An expert in 

the operation of firearms and ammunition testified that the .380 Cobra handgun was operable and 

capable of creating an explosion and expelling a projectile out of the end of the barrel.

2 Seamster 

claimed that the .380 handgun belonged to Chris but told Edmonds that he knew it was in his 

dresser drawer. Seamster did not indicate that he knew about the presence of the saloon gun in 

the drawer.

When Edmonds stated that he was also looking for jewelry, Seamster invoked his 

Miranda3rights, and officers arrested him and removed him from the property. The officers

continued to search Seamster’s house, and under his bed they found two safes. Next to the bed 

was a set of keys that opened one safe. This safe contained Seamster’s social security card, birth 

certificate, and a Crown Royal bag with jewelry that Lawrence later identified as belonging to 

him. Edmonds found a gun box containing ammunition on an “end table” in Seamster’s 

bedroom.4

In the kitchen, officers found two driver’s licenses, one of which was voided, containing 

Seamster’s name, his address, and business cards like the one Seamster had left at the gas station. 

2 This expert also examined .22 caliber rifles, several “pre-1958” 30-30 caliber rifles, 

30-30 ammunition, and .22 long rifle ammunition recovered in the case. He stated that 30-30 

rifles operated by putting a round into a magazine along the bottom of the barrel, and racking the 

lever, thereby loading a round and expelling an empty cartridge. He also testified that the 30-30 

ammunition contained primer that sparked when the firing pin struck it, creating combustion, and 

expelling a projectile.

3 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

4 Officers found other items in Seamster’s bedroom that Lawrence identified as his.
- 6 -

The voided driver’s license was the one Seamster had provided to complete the pawn transaction 

on October 31, 2017.

A few days after the search of his home, Seamster asked to speak with law enforcement. 

During his interview with Edmonds, Seamster claimed that Chris stayed at his house “off and 

on,” and Chris also sometimes stayed at the “bullpen” near an auto mechanic shop. Seamster 

told Edmonds that Chris gave him “all of the things that [officers] found in his house,” and “they 

had brought them from the bullpen over to his house.” Seamster stated that he asked Chris 

where the items came from and Chris said he “had hit a lick” or had “done a lick,” meaning that 

he had broken into a house. Seamster denied that he broke into Lawrence’s house, but he 

admitted that he helped Chris move items from the bullpen to his house. Seamster also told 

Edmonds that Chis owed him money and paid Seamster in “old currency,” and he bought some 

old currency from Chris.

Chris told Edmonds that he did not break into Lawrence’s house or move anything into 

Seamster’s house. He claimed that he happened to be at Seamster’s house on the date of the 

search.

Based on items seen during the search of Seamster’s house, Halifax County Sheriff’s 

Sergeant Thomas Lewis, a special officer with the Virginia State Police assigned to the South 

Boston Regional Narcotic and Gang Task Force, obtained a search warrant for marijuana, 

cocaine, drug paraphernalia, packaging materials, and items “used to conceal drug activity.” 

Lewis found suspected marijuana and scales on the kitchen counter in the house. He also found 

a baggie of suspected cocaine in the kitchen trash can. The dishwasher contained smoking 

devices, straws, and different items that appeared to be used for marijuana smoking. In the 

microwave located on the kitchen counter, Lewis found a plate with suspected cocaine residue, a 

cigarette pack containing a bag of cocaine, a straw, a $1 bill, and a credit card in Seamster’s
- 7 -

name. Lewis testified that dollar bills are sometimes used as a straw to sniff cocaine and the 

credit card could be used to cut the cocaine. Laboratory analysis showed that the cigarette pack 

contained 0.7984 gram of cocaine.

Seamster, a convicted felon, testified in his defense and admitted that he sold the jewelry 

at the pawn shop, claiming that Chris gave him the jewelry because Chris owed him money. 

Seamster stated that in October 2017, Chris had been staying at his house for three or four 

months, but Chris was also sometimes living at the “bullpen” where he worked. According to 

Seamster, Chris often brought “stuff” in and out of his house as he moved around. Seamster 

denied helping Chris move anything, stating that Chris put items in Seamster’s truck and 

Seamster drove the truck to his house.

Seamster also testified that he had “never seen any guns in the closet” although he had 

“seen a sword in the closet.” He claimed that he did not help Chris wrap the rifles in the blanket 

and denied telling Edmonds that he had done so. Seamster testified that he told Edmonds he did 

not see any guns in the house and Edmonds tried to “trick” him into admitting that there were 

guns in his home. Seamster denied that he knew the gun was in the dresser drawer or that he told 

Edmonds there was a gun in his bedroom. He testified that officers went into the room, exited it 

with the gun, and asked him, “What is this?” Seamster stated that he told the officers the gun

belonged to Chris, and he had “seen it before,” but had never seen it in his house. Seamster also 

claimed that Chris liked to hide things.

Seamster stated that he saw Chris with “some coins and stuff,” and he asked Chris where 

he got the items. He testified that Chris replied that he had “hit a lick,” but Seamster believed 

Chris was joking because he had seen old coins and money at Chris’s mother’s house where 

Chris once lived. Seamster also stated that Chris gave him the “old” money that he spent at the 

gas station. Seamster testified that he had no idea that the items he directed Edmonds to during 
- 8 -

the search or the jewelry he pawned belonged to Lawrence. He claimed that he did not have a 

credit card and denied any knowledge of the items found in the microwave. Seamster admitted 

that he put “some weed bowls and some weed” in the dishwasher but denied any knowledge of 

the cocaine.

On cross-examination, Seamster testified that he sometimes stayed with his girlfriend at

another residence and Chris slept in Seamster’s bedroom at his house. He acknowledged that 

this house was his main residence where he received his mail and kept his dogs and other items

such as his safes and forms of identification.

Conner, Seamster’s girlfriend of almost ten years, testified that Seamster sometimes 

stayed with her at her residence and that Chris was staying at Seamster’s house around the time 

of October and November 2017. She testified that Seamster had owned his house for about four 

years. Conner stated that on November 6, 2017, she saw Chris hooking up a “big” flat screen 

television that looked “brand new.” Conner also testified that Chris collected “old currency.”

Kathy Spangler, Chris’s mother, and Jennifer Anderson Moore, Chris’s sister, both 

testified that Chris does not collect coins or old currency. Moore also stated that she had never 

seen Chris with a firearm.

The trial court expressly found Seamster’s trial testimony incredible, noting it was not 

corroborated by other evidence in the case. Further, the trial court credited Edmonds’s testimony 

concerning the statements Seamster made implicating himself in the case. The trial court also 

noted that when Edmonds told Seamster he had the search warrant and asked Seamster if he 

wanted to show him anything, appellant pointed out the NRA bag, which contained a firearm, the 

guest room closet containing firearms, and his dresser where firearms were located. Officers 

found the safe under Seamster’s bed containing Seamster’s identifying documents and some of 
- 9 -

Lawrence’s jewelry. The trial court found appellant guilty of all the charges. Seamster appeals

the case to this Court.

Double Jeopardy

The Commonwealth concedes that Seamster may not be convicted of both possession of 

a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, stemming 

from the same instance of possession, pursuant to Groffel. Under settled principles, an appellate 

court may not accept even formal concessions of law without independently confirming their 

correctness. Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168, 172 (2005) (en banc).

“We review de novo whether ‘multiple punishments have been imposed for the same 

offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause.’” Groffel, 70 Va. App. at 687 (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Gregg, 295 Va. 293, 298 (2018)). In Groffel, the defendant, who had a prior 

felony conviction, possessed a cabinet containing “an AK-47 assault rifle,” a shotgun, 

ammunition for the two firearms, and ammunition for a “30-30 rifle.” Id. at 685. The trial court 

convicted him of two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition after conviction for a felony,

noting that the “separate charge for possession of ammunition was based on ammunition that did 

not match the types of firearms found with it.” Id. at 686. This Court concluded that the trial 

court erred in imposing separate convictions for possession of a firearm and possession of 

ammunition, holding that “Code § 18.2-308.2 does not separately penalize the appellant’s 

possession of firearms and ammunition at the same time in the shed.” Id. at 694. Further, 

merely because “some of the ammunition in the appellant’s possession did not pair with the 

firearms found with it does not justify separate convictions for simultaneous possession under 

the statute[.]” Id. at 695. We held that “the appellant should have been subject to only one 

punishment under Code § 18.2-308.2 for the firearms and ammunition[.]” Id.
- 10 -

Here, the Commonwealth charged Seamster with possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. The evidence showed that during the 

search, officers found in Seamster’s residence multiple firearms and ammunition in several 

locations. As in Groffel, we hold that the trial court erred in imposing both convictions and 

sentences for each under Code § 18.2-308.2 for simultaneous possession of a firearm and 

possession of ammunition because doing so is a violation of the double jeopardy clause. See id. 

Consequently, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court to allow the Commonwealth to 

elect one conviction and sentence for the violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. See id.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Because upon remand, the Commonwealth must elect one conviction and sentence for 

Seamster’s violation of Code § 18.2-308.2, we consider his assignments of error challenging the 

sufficiency of the evidence for those convictions. We also address his argument that the 

evidence failed to prove that he possessed a firearm simultaneously with cocaine.

“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.’” Yoder v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 180, 181-82 (2019) (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.’” 

Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204, 228 (2018) (quoting Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 

502, 512 (2017)). “Rather, the relevant question is, upon review of the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Pijor, 294 Va. at 512). “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 
- 11 -

at the trial.’” Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018) (quoting Banks v. 

Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 273, 288 (2017)).

“It shall be unlawful for . . . any person who has been convicted of a felony . . . to 

knowingly and intentionally possess or transport any firearm or ammunition for a firearm[.]” 

Code § 18.2-308.2(A).

Seamster argues that no evidence showed he was aware of the gun in the NRA bag; there 

was reasonable doubt as to whether he knew of the nature and character of the firearms or 

ammunition found in the blanket; the weapon that was in plain sight in the closet was not 

determined to have been designed, made, and intended to expel a projectile by means of an 

explosion; and the evidence failed to show he knew that the .380 pistol and saloon gun were in 

the dresser drawer. He further contends that the evidence failed to establish that he knew of the 

weapons or ammunition on the premises. Seamster asserts that even assuming he knew the 

firearms and ammunition were at his residence, “[h]e did not exercise dominion and control”

over them.

“The sufficiency ‘inquiry does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial

evidence, as the fact finder . . . “is entitled to consider all of the evidence, without distinction, in 

reaching its determination.”’” Rams v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 12, 27 (2019) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Moseley, 293 Va. 455, 463 (2017)). “When circumstantial evidence is 

involved, the evidence as a whole must be ‘sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable 

hypothesis except that of guilt.’” Id. (quoting Dowden v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 459, 468 

(2000)).

“Constructive possession may be established by ‘evidence of acts, statements, or conduct 

of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware 

of both the presence and the character of the [firearm] and that it was subject to his dominion and 
- 12 -

control.’” Hall v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 437, 448 (2018) (quoting Logan v. 

Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 437, 444 (1994) (en banc)). “A person’s ownership or occupancy 

of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct 

concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether 

the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Id. (quoting Wright v. 

Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 266, 274 (2009)). “Possession and not ownership is the vital issue. 

Possession may be joint or several. Two or more persons may be in possession where each has 

the power of control and intends to exercise control jointly.” Atkins v. Commonwealth, 57 

Va. App. 2, 23 (2010) (quoting Burnette v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 785, 792 (1953)). 

“Ultimately, ‘the issue [of what constitutes constructive possession] is largely a factual one’ left 

to the trier of fact, not the appellate court.” Bagley v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 1, 28 (2021).

Here, the evidence showed that the firearms and ammunition were found in Seamster’s 

residence. He testified that the house was where he received his mail and kept his dogs, safes,

and items of identification. Seamster’s girlfriend acknowledged that although Seamster 

sometimes stayed with her at her residence, the house where the firearms and ammunition were 

located had been Seamster’s residence for about four years. In addition, when Seamster led 

Edmonds around the house, he identified one of the bedrooms as his own bedroom. Under the 

bed in Seamster’s bedroom, officers found the safe containing Seamster’s birth certificate, social 

security card, and some of Lawrence’s stolen jewelry. The keys to this safe were next to the bed. 

See Shears v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 394, 402-03 (1996) (evidence of personal documents 

in same room as drugs and firearms is a circumstance to consider in finding constructive 

possession of drugs).

Edmonds told Seamster that they were looking for stolen items, including weapons, and 

he asked Seamster if he could direct them to any stolen or possibly stolen items in the house. 
- 13 -

Seamster then pointed to the NRA bag on the living room floor, stating that it could possibly be 

stolen. A small revolver pistol consistent with one of the guns Lawrence reported as stolen was 

inside the bag. Seamster then led Edmonds to the guest bedroom closet and pointed to the

blanket wrapped in tape. Edmonds testified that Seamster told him there were “weapons” inside 

the blanket and that he had helped wrap them in the blanket. Although at trial, Seamster denied 

admitting that he knew the firearms were in the blanket or that he helped wrap them inside the 

blanket, the trial court expressly credited Edmonds’s testimony concerning Seamster’s 

incriminating statements. “When ‘credibility issues have been resolved by the [fact finder] in 

favor of the Commonwealth, those findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly 

wrong.’” Towler v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 284, 291 (2011) (quoting Corvin v. 

Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 296, 299 (1991)). “The fact finder, who has the opportunity to see 

and hear the witnesses, has the sole responsibility to determine their credibility, the weight to be 

given their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts.” Rams, 70 Va. App. at 

26-27 (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 94, 105 (2010)).

The blanket contained four rifles and loose ammunition. A rifle was also in plain view in 

the same closet.5 Considering that, in response to Edmonds’s statement that he was looking for 

weapons and stolen items, Seamster pointed to the NRA bag containing a firearm and led 

Edmonds to the location of the firearms in the blanket, later stating that he had helped wrap the 

rifles in the blanket, the trial court could conclude that appellant was aware of the presence and 

5 Seamster argues that the evidence failed to show that the rifle in plain view in the closet 

was designed, made, and intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion. However, 

even assuming that this argument is correct, it is of no consequence because the evidence showed 

that Seamster constructively possessed numerous other firearms in the case. “As we have often 

said, ‘the doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases “on the best and narrowest

grounds available.”’” Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392, 396 (2020) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017) (alteration omitted)).
- 14 -

character of these firearms and the ammunition in the blanket, and they were subject to his 

dominion and control.

Seamster argues that the evidence failed to prove he had knowledge of the .380 pistol and 

saloon gun found in the dresser drawer of his bedroom. Not only did Seamster identify this 

bedroom as his own bedroom, he led Edmonds to the bedroom, pointed to the dresser, and 

indicated that there was a weapon inside the dresser that “possibly could have been stolen.” 

Clearly, Seamster’s statement and his conduct in directing Edmonds to the dresser showed that 

Seamster was aware of the presence and character of the firearms found in the dresser drawer. 

Further, when Edmonds recovered the loaded .380 pistol, Seamster claimed that the gun 

belonged to Chris, indicating that he was aware of the nature and character of the gun. 

Possession may be joint and several and it mattered not whether Chris was the gun’s owner. See

Atkins, 57 Va. App. at 23. Seamster still could have jointly possessed a gun owned by Chris that 

Seamster knew was in his dresser drawer.

Although Seamster denied having any knowledge of the saloon gun, the trial court found 

that Seamster’s trial testimony was incredible. “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.” Speller v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 378, 388 (2018). 

Further, Lawrence identified the recovered saloon gun as one of his stolen firearms. Officers 

also found in Seamster’s bedroom a box of ammunition on an end table. From the evidence of 

appellant’s conduct and statements, the trial court could conclude that Seamster was aware of the 

nature and character of the firearms in the dresser drawer and the box of ammunition in his 

bedroom.

6

 The Commonwealth’s evidence was competent, was not inherently incredible, and 

6 Seamster argues that the evidence failed to prove he exercised dominion and control 

over the ammunition and firearms located in his bedroom. However, at oral argument, he
- 15 -

was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of possession of a 

firearm or possession of ammunition after having been convicted of a felony.

“It shall be unlawful for any person unlawfully in possession of [cocaine] . . . to 

simultaneously with knowledge and intent possess any firearm.” Code § 18.2-308.4(A). 

Seamster concedes that this Court held in a one-judge order that the evidence was sufficient to 

prove that he possessed cocaine on the date of the search.

7

 Officers found the cocaine in the 

kitchen on the same date that they located the firearms in Seamster’s residence. As addressed 

above, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Seamster possessed the firearms. Therefore, the 

evidence was sufficient to prove that he possessed cocaine simultaneously with his possession of 

the firearms. Although Seamster asserts that the cocaine was found in a “separate room” from 

the firearms, the fact that the cocaine was recovered in the kitchen and the firearms were found 

elsewhere in the house is of no moment because the Commonwealth was required to prove only 

simultaneous possession of both the cocaine and firearms. Cf. Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 14 

Va. App. 77, 80-81 (1992) (“The Commonwealth need not prove that [appellant] had ready 

access to either the gun or the [drugs] to establish ‘simultaneous possession.’”).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove that 

Seamster possessed a firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2 and possessed ammunition in 

conceded that he had dominion and control over the items found in his bedroom. Therefore, this 

argument is of no moment.

7 On December 15, 2020, in a one-judge order, the Court granted the three assignments of 

error addressed herein and denied Seamster’s assignment of error contending that the evidence 

was insufficient to prove that he possessed cocaine. Seamster v. Commonwealth, No. 1193-19-2 

(Va. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2020). Seamster sought a three-judge review of the denied possession of 

cocaine assignment of error, and a three-judge panel of this Court affirmed the conviction for 

that charge for the reasons stated in the December 15, 2020 order. Seamster v. Commonwealth, 

No. 1193-20-2 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2021).
- 16 -

violation of this statute. However, the trial court erred in imposing two sentences under Code 

§ 18.2-308.2 for simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition. Accordingly, we remand 

this case to the trial court to allow the Commonwealth to elect one conviction and sentence for 

Seamster’s violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. See Groffel, 70 Va. App. at 695-96. See also

Andrews v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 231, 288 (2010) (“In a typical case where a defendant has 

been subject to impermissible multiple punishments, ‘the only remedy consistent with [the 

legislature’s] intent is for the [trial court], where the sentencing responsibility resides, . . . to 

vacate one of the underlying convictions.’” (first and second alterations in original) (quoting Ball 

v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864 (1985))). Cf. Gregg, 295 Va. at 301 (holding that 

convictions for involuntary manslaughter under Code § 18.2-154 and common law involuntary 

manslaughter violated the double jeopardy clause, and, on remand, the Commonwealth must 

elect between the two sentences then, following election, the trial court shall vacate the other 

sentence). “Thereafter, the [trial] court shall vacate the other conviction and sentence under” 

Code § 18.2-308.2. Groffel, 70 Va. App. at 696; see Gregg, 295 Va. at 301.

Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.