COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Lemons and Frank 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

DAVID JOHN ROEBUCK 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1060-99-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JANUARY 27, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Everett A. Martin, Jr., Judge 

 David H. Moyer (Bashara & Hubbard, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

 On appeal from his conviction of unlawful wounding, in 

violation of Code § 18.2-51, David John Roebuck contends that 

the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because 

the Commonwealth did not prove felonious intent or a wounding. 

We affirm. 

 "When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal 

of a criminal conviction, we must view all the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth and accord to the 

evidence all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom." 

Traverso v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 718, 
721 (1988). "The judgment of a trial court sitting without a 

jury is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will 

not be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that the 

judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." 

Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 

(1987). 

 On August 25, 1998, Derrick Danner argued with Terry Winer, 

who complained to Roebuck. Roebuck went looking for Danner, but 

could not find him. Roebuck searched unsuccessfully a second 

time, carrying a baseball bat and bragging to Winer's son that 

he come along to watch the "big fight." Finally, after a third 

search, Roebuck found Danner, who was sitting on an outside 

bench in the trailer park. Roebuck struck Danner from behind, 

knocking him unconscious. Winer, who was present, testified 

that Roebuck struck Danner in the face approximately thirteen 

times and that he bragged if he had had a brick, it would have 

been the "grand finale." 

 The indictment, tracking Code § 18.2-51, charged that 

Roebuck "did maliciously wound or cause bodily injury to" 

Danner. Roebuck was convicted in a bench trial of unlawful 

wounding, a lesser offense included within Code § 18.2-51. He 

was sentenced to five years imprisonment, with three years 

suspended, and ordered to pay Danner $2,500 restitution. 

 Roebuck contends that the evidence is insufficient to 

support his conviction. He argues, first, that the evidence 

- 2 -
failed to prove that he acted with the intent required by the 

statute. 

 Code § 18.2-51 states: 

If any person maliciously shoot, stab, 

cut, or wound any person or by any means 

cause him bodily injury, with the intent to 

maim, disfigure, disable, or kill, he shall 

. . . be guilty of a Class 3 felony. If 

such act be done unlawfully but not 

maliciously, with the intent aforesaid, the 

offender shall be guilty of a Class 6 

felony[, the lesser-included offense of 

unlawful wounding]. 

Roebuck relies on the general proposition that a blow struck 

with bare fists, under ordinary circumstances, is insufficient 

to imply an attack with the intent to "maim, disfigure, disable, 

or kill." Id. See also Williams v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 

393, 395-96, 412 S.E.2d 202, 203-04 (1991). He argues that the 

trial court's finding that he did not act with malice excludes 

the possibility that he acted with the requisite intent. We 

disagree. "[A]n assault with a bare fist may be attended with 

such circumstances of violence and brutality that an intent to 

[maim, disfigure, disable, or] kill may be presumed." Fletcher 

v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 636, 640, 166 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1969). 

 The record supports the finding that Roebuck intended to 

attack Danner with such violence and brutality. He searched for 

Danner three times, once while wielding a baseball bat. He 

encouraged Winer's son to accompany him to watch the "big 

fight," and he bragged that if he had had a brick, it would have 

- 3 -
been the "grand finale." His conviction of unlawful wounding, a 

lesser-included offense, does not alter the violence and 

brutality of the attack. Roebuck knocked Danner unconscious. 

Danner's injuries included a bloody lip, a black eye, lost 

teeth, and a broken cheekbone. He testified that he continues 

to suffer from seizures, dizziness, and numbness on the left 

side of his face. The severity and number of blows demonstrate 

Roebuck's intent "to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill" his 

victim. Code § 18.2-51. 

 Roebuck also contends that the evidence was insufficient to 

prove a wounding. See Code § 18.2-51. Under familiar 

principles, we will address only those issues raised at trial. 

See Rule 5A:18; Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422, 425 

S.E.2d 521, 525 (1992). At trial, defense counsel moved to 

strike the evidence at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's 

case-in-chief, stating, "there's insufficient evidence to show 

. . . malice on the part of the defendant." Because the trial 

court found Roebuck guilty of unlawful wounding, a 

lesser-included offense, this objection is moot. At the close 

of the trial, defense counsel renewed his motion to strike, 

stating "the evidence is [in]sufficient . . . to show that these 

injuries were sufficient to show felonious intent . . . ." At 

no point did defense counsel object to the insufficiency of the 

evidence based upon whether it proved a wounding as defined 

within Code § 18.2-51. 

- 4 -
 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 

- 5 -