COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Decker and O’Brien 

Argued by teleconference 

ALFRED DARNELL LANE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0972-16-1 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS 

 APRIL 10, 2018 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 

Johnny E. Morrison, Judge 

 Taite Westendorf (William Roots, Jr., on brief), for appellant. 

 Robert H. Anderson, III, Assistant Attorney General (Mark 

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

Alfred Darnell Lane (“Lane”) appeals his conviction for armed burglary in violation of 

Code § 18.2-90 in the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth (the “circuit court”). He argues 

that “[i]t was error for the court to find sufficient evidence appellant committed armed burglary 

as the Commonwealth’s proof lacked evidence of a breaking.” 

I. BACKGROUND 

Around 2:45 p.m. on August 20, 2015, Antonio Scott (“Antonio”) returned to his home at 

443 Florida Avenue, in the city of Portsmouth, with his groceries. His sister Dajanay was 

waiting near the front door and saw her brother enter the house with an unknown woman. 

Antonio locked the door after he came in. After talking with her brother, Dajanay went back 

towards her room. Dajanay heard the unknown woman who had come in with Antonio say that 

she had to grab her phone charger from the car. As this unknown woman opened the door to the 

 *

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

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

house, two men came in, later identified as Lane and Christian Burden (“Burden”). Dajanay 

heard Antonio tell the men “You’re not coming in here.” Lane had a gun, which Antonio and 

Lane began struggling over. The gun went off during the struggle. Dajanay heard three more 

gunshots, followed by her brother exclaiming “[o]h, he shot me.” Dajanay asked Lane and 

Burden if she could get help for Antonio, but they refused. The men searched Antonio’s room, 

but were apparently unable to find what they wanted. Lane called out for Burden to check if 

Antonio was dead. Shortly thereafter, both Lane and Burden ran out of the house. 

Lane was tried on March 28, 2016, for felony murder, abduction, armed robbery, 

burglary, and related firearms charges. At trial, Myron Delbridge (“Delbridge”), a fellow inmate 

incarcerated with Lane at the Hampton Roads Regional Jail, testified that Lane had turned to him 

for advice. Delbridge testified that Lane told him he and Burden had gained access to the house 

through a “young lady” who opened the door for them on the pretense that she was getting her 

phone charger. As this “young lady” left the house, Lane and Burden “bum rushed the house.” 

Lane was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to a total term of sixty-eight years in prison 

and twelve months in jail. 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Standard of Review 

“When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and 

all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party 

in the trial court.” Rowland v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 396, 399, 707 S.E.2d 331, 333 (2011). 

“The judgment of the trial court shall not be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that 

said judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Bright v. Commonwealth, 4 

Va. App. 248, 250-51, 356 S.E.2d 443, 444 (1987); see also Code § 8.01-680. 

 
- 3 - 

B. Whether a Breaking Occurred 

Code § 18.2-90 states that “If any person in the nighttime enters without breaking or in 

the daytime breaks and enters . . . with intent to commit murder, rape, robbery or arson in 

violation of §§ 18.2-77, 18.2-79 or § 18.2-80, he shall be deemed guilty of statutory burglary.” 

Because this incident occurred during the daytime, breaking must be shown. Breaking “may be 

either actual or constructive.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 872, 876, 275 S.E.2d 592, 

594 (1981) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 132 Va. 521, 523, 110 S.E. 356, 357 (1922)). 

Actual breaking requires “the application of some force, slight though it may be, whereby the 

entrance is effected.” Id. The force involved may indeed be very slight. See Phoung v. 

Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 457, 424 S.E.2d 712 (1992) (finding widening of an already 

slightly open glass door sufficient to prove breaking). Constructive breaking, by contrast, “can 

include fraud, threats, trickery, conspiracy, or some other nefarious conduct designed to prompt 

the victim to let the burglar inside.” Lay v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 330, 335, 649 S.E.2d 

714, 716 (2007). 

Lane argues that no breaking occurred because the evidence lacked proof of force or 

deception of Antonio to gain entry. It is true that Dajanay could not see the door from her 

position, and therefore cannot say whether Lane or Burden applied any force to the door, but she 

did hear the unknown woman tell Antonio that she was retrieving her phone charger from the 

car. In conjunction with Delbridge’s testimony, this evidence, taken in the light most favorable 

to the Commonwealth, supports the finding that the unknown woman was a part of a plan by 

Lane and Burden to gain access to the house. Though there are few cases in our jurisprudence 

outlining constructive breaking, the use of the unknown woman to gain access fits squarely 

within the bounds of “fraud, threats, trickery, conspiracy, or some other nefarious conduct 

designed to . . . let the burglar inside.” Id. This Court has held that “[a] breaking occurs when an 
- 4 - 

accomplice opens a locked door from within to enable his cohorts to enter to commit a theft or 

by leaving a door or window open from within to facilitate a later entry to commit a crime.” 

Bruce v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 264, 270, 469 S.E.2d 64, 68 (1996). This is precisely 

what the testimony in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth shows. In short, “[t]he 

gravamen of the offense is breaking the close or the sanctity of the residence, which can be 

accomplished from within or without.” Id. 

Furthermore, actual and constructive breakings are not mutually exclusive. In Johnson, 

our Supreme Court held a breaking was both constructive and actual where the defendant had 

gained access to the house by claiming he was there to fix electrical fuses and widening the 

slightly ajar door when the resident went to get him a requested glass of water. See Johnson, 221 

Va. at 876, 275 S.E.2d at 595. The situation here is similar. The record indicates that Antonio 

locked the door when he came into the house with the groceries. Whether the unknown woman 

with him merely ensured the door was unlocked for Lane and Burden or opened it for them is 

unknown, but either scenario constitutes a breaking. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The evidence was clearly sufficient to show that a breaking occurred, and therefore the 

judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. 

Affirmed.