COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

HOWARD NOWELL, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0887-96-1 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 APRIL 8, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Marc Jacobson, Judge 

 Jon M. Babineau (Doyle & Babineau, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Kimberley A. Whittle, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Howard Nowell, Jr. (defendant) was convicted in a bench 

trial of two counts of robbery and one related use of a firearm 

in the commission of a robbery. On appeal, defendant challenges 

the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the firearm offense. 

Finding no error, we affirm the conviction. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this 

memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a 

disposition of the appeal. 

 Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

therefrom. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). The judgment of a trial court, sitting 

without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict 

and will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence 

to support it. See id. The credibility of a witness, the weight 

accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from 

proven facts are matters solely for the fact finder's 

determination. See Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 

379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989). 

 Code § 18.2-53.1 declares it "unlawful for any person to use 

or attempt to use any pistol, shotgun, rifle, or other firearm or 

display such weapon in a threatening manner while committing or 

attempting to commit . . . robbery." Conviction requires "proof 

of 'actual' possession of a firearm," which "may be established 

by circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, or both." Byers v. 

Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 146, 150, 474 S.E.2d 852, 854 (1996); 

see Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215, 216-19, 441 S.E.2d 

342, 343-44 (1994). 

 Here, Gerald Davenport, an eyewitness to the offense, 

testified that defendant withdrew "a gun," which "looked like a 

revolver," "halfway out" of his pocket. On cross-examination, 

Davenport added, "I saw a firearm. I saw a gun. . . . I saw a 

black gun. I mean, how much more do you want me to explain?" 

Davenport's inability to recall a "sight mount," "hammer or . . . 

trigger" on the weapon does not render his testimony incredible. 

 As we noted in Wilson v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 535, 537, 452 
- 3 - 

S.E.2d 884, 885 (1995), such direct evidence, if believed by the 

fact finder, is alone sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that defendant actually possessed a firearm. 

 Moreover, Davenport's testimony was corroborated by Teresa 

Foster, also present in the store during the offense. Foster 

observed defendant in possession of an object with a "brown 

handle," which "looked like a corner of a gun." Shortly after 

the robbery, Foster saw defendant firing a gun in the store 

parking lot. Foster and Davenport both testified that when 

defendant again robbed the store several days later, he had a 

bulge in his pocket and stated that he had a gun. See Byers, 23 

Va. App. at 152, 474 S.E.2d at 855; Elmore v. Commonwealth, 22 

Va. App. 424, 430, 470 S.E.2d 588, 590 (1996) 

 Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 

 Affirmed.