COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

DARREL HICKS, S/K/A 

 DARRELL ALSAAH HICKS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 3139-96-1 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 FEBRUARY 17, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Thomas S. Shadrick, Judge 

 Andrea C. Long (Charles C. Cosby, Jr.; Boone, 

Beale, Carpenter & Cosby, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

(Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Darrell Hicks (defendant) and codefendant Randy Cummings 

were convicted in a joint jury trial for the robbery and 

abduction of Timothy Price. Defendant complains that the trial 

court erroneously refused accessory-after-the-fact to robbery and 

petit larceny instructions and, further, that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the convictions. Finding no error, we 

affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this 

memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a 

disposition of the appeal. 

 Timothy Price, a "route driver" for Old Dominion Tobacco 

Company, arrived for work on the morning of January 14, 1993, and 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

loaded his delivery truck with sundry merchandise valued in 

excess of $9,000. As he started the engine, a man opened the 

truck door and confronted Price with a gun. Although a 

"bandanna" covered the intruder's face, Price recognized 

codefendant Cummings, a former employee of Old Dominion Tobacco 

Company, "right off." Cummings ordered Price to the floor of the 

truck, drove the vehicle to a vacant lot and "frisked" Price, 

taking his glasses and wallet, which contained approximately $38. 

 Cummings then "put tape around [Price's] eyes," handcuffed his 

wrists and ordered him inside the truck, commanding, "Do what I 

say!". 

 Cummings drove the truck to another location, again stopped, 

and called, "Hey T" or "D." Price then detected the presence of 

a second person as "they" locked him in the rear of the truck and 

proceeded to yet another destination. En route, Price freed 

himself from the handcuffs, removed the tape from his eyes, and 

began "banging on the truck door." Cummings immediately ordered, 

"cut that out." Shortly thereafter, "they opened the back of the 

truck just a little[,] . . . pointed a gun" at Price and once 

more handcuffed and taped him "around [the] eyes and mouth." 

Price was then transferred to a car, where the driver repeatedly 

warned, "do as I say," and "don't move and you won't get hurt." 

Price immediately identified defendant, also a former employee of 

Old Dominion Tobacco Company, by the sound of his voice. 

 When Price was eventually released on the "outskirts" of 
- 3 - 

Franklin, defendant removed the handcuffs. Price pulled the tape 

from his eyes and observed the "silhouette" of a white Volvo 

speeding away. Price recalled that defendant had shown Price his 

white Volvo "a couple of times" at work. At trial, Price 

expressed "zero doubts" that defendant and Cummings were the 

perpetrators. 

 Both Cummings and defendant denied involvement in the 

offenses. Defendant testified that he was employed by Old 

Dominion Tobacco Company until August, 1992, admitted an 

acquaintance with both Price and Cummings but denied showing 

Price his Volvo automobile. He claimed to be in his Richmond 

home, asleep, on the morning of the crimes. Defendant's cousin 

testified that defendant's Volvo was inoperable during January, 

1993, but conceded that the car would "crank up." 

Proffered Jury Instructions

 The principles governing our review of a 

trial court's decision refusing a jury 

instruction are well-settled. "If any 

credible evidence in the record supports a 

proffered instruction on a lesser included 

offense, failure to give the instruction is 

reversible error." "Such an instruction, 

however, must be supported by more than a 

mere scintilla of evidence." 

Brandau v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 408, 411, 430 S.E.2d 563, 

564 (1993) (citations omitted). "'[T]he weight of the credible 

evidence that will amount to more than a mere scintilla . . . is 

a matter to be resolved on a case-by-case basis' by assessing the 

evidence in 'support of a proposition' against the 'other 
- 4 - 

credible evidence that negates' it." Winston v. Commonwealth, 16 

Va. App. 901, 905, 434 S.E.2d 4, 6 (1993) (quoting Brandau, 16 

Va. App. at 411-12, 430 S.E.2d at 565). "[T]he appropriate 

standard of review requires that we view the evidence with 

respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to 

[defendant]." Brandau, 16 Va. App. at 411, 430 S.E.2d at 564-65 

(citation omitted). 

 Here, defendant contends that the trial court erroneously 

refused instructions on accessory-after-the-fact to robbery and 

petit larceny. However, defendant testified at trial that he was 

elsewhere during the offenses and was innocent of the crimes. 

Manifestly, such evidence suggested no involvement as an 

accessory-after-the-fact, and nothing in the record otherwise 

justified such instruction. Similarly, the uncontradicted 

evidence fixed the value of the stolen property well in excess of 

$200, offering no support for a petit larceny instruction. 

Sufficiency of the Evidence

 "Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged after 

conviction, it is our duty to consider it in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth and give it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. We should affirm the 

judgment unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Higginbotham 

v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). 

"The credibility of a witness, the weight accorded the testimony, 
- 5 - 

and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts are matters 

solely for the fact finder's determination." Spivey v. 

Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 715, 724, 479 S.E.2d 543, 548 (1997). 

 The instant record discloses that defendant and Cummings had 

once worked with Price at Old Dominion Tobacco Company. Price 

was familiar with defendant's physical appearance, voice 

characteristics and white Volvo car. He identified both 

defendant and Cummings with certainty and observed a white Volvo 

leaving the scene of his release. The jury was convinced by 

Price's identifications and other evidence linking defendant and 

Cummings to the offenses, while disbelieving their protestations 

of innocence. The resulting verdicts were, therefore, well 

supported by the evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the convictions. 

 Affirmed.