COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

DAVID RAY RIGGS, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1199-94-2 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 OCTOBER 24, 1995 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

Lee A. Harris, Jr., Judge 

 Joseph Dee Morrissey (Gary R. Hershner; 

 Hershner & Jacobs, on brief), for appellant. 

 Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General 

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, 

 on brief), for appellee. 

 David Ray Riggs, Jr., was tried without a jury and convicted 

of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of robbery. 

Code §§ 18.2-53.1 and 18.2-58. He contends the evidence was 

insufficient to support the convictions. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm the convictions. 

 The evidence proved that Riggs and Stoney Verlander visited 

Terry Smith's apartment to have tattoos placed on their bodies. 

Remke Wallermeyer gave Verlander his tattoo first. Before 

receiving his tattoo, Riggs removed his shirt and a gold necklace 

and placed them on a chair. After Wallermeyer gave Riggs his 

tattoo, Riggs and Verlander left the apartment. 

 Several minutes after they left, Riggs telephoned Smith and 

asked Smith to look for his gold chain. After Smith and his 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

roommates, Steve Marshall and Anja Anderton, searched the 

apartment for the necklace, Smith told Riggs that they could not 

find it. Within minutes of the telephone call, Verlander and 

Riggs returned to the apartment. Smith, Marshall, Anderton, 

Wallermeyer and Anthony Johnson were all in the apartment. 

 Riggs angrily accused the people in the apartment of having 

his necklace and told them to empty their pockets. After Smith 

emptied his pockets and was replacing items in his pockets, Riggs 

made Smith empty his pockets a second time. Smith testified that 

Verlander then pointed a gun at him. When Smith removed $200 

from his pocket and held it in his hand, Riggs took the money and 

stated, "that makes us even for the chain." He also told Smith, 

"when you find my chain, you can have your money." Smith then 

noticed that Riggs was holding a gun at Riggs' side. 

 Johnson testified that Riggs was upset when he made the 

accusations. Both Johnson and Wallermeyer testified that neither 

Verlander nor Riggs had a weapon. Marshall testified that both 

Verlander and Riggs had a gun. Anderton testified that Riggs was 

angry and hollering and that Verlander had a gun. Smith 

testified that although he was not verbally threatened by Riggs, 

he was frightened and did not want to give his money to Riggs. 

 To sustain a conviction of robbery, the evidence must prove 

that Riggs took, with the intent to steal, property from Smith by 

violence, force, or intimidation. Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 213 

Va. 149, 149, 191 S.E.2d 261, 261 (1972). Intent to steal means 
- 3 - 

an intent to deprive permanently of the property. Pierce v. 

Commonwealth, 205 Va. 528, 533, 138 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1964). All 

the elements of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Mitchell, 213 Va. at 149, 191 S.E.2d at 261. 

 When the issue of sufficiency of the evidence is raised 

following a conviction, we must view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth. Higginbotham v. 

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

viewed, the evidence proved that Riggs angrily entered the 

apartment and forced each person to empty his and her pockets. 

Although the evidence concerning the guns was in conflict, the 

trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt from the 

witnesses' testimony that both Riggs and Verlander had guns when 

they made the people empty their pockets. Hall v. Commonwealth, 

8 Va. App. 526, 530, 383 S.E.2d 18, 21 (1989). The evidence 

further proved that when Riggs took money from Smith, Verlander 

was pointing his gun at Smith. Riggs also had a gun at his side. 

 This evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the taking 

of the money was accompanied by force or intimidation. 

 Riggs contends that the evidence did not prove he intended 

to permanently deprive Smith of the money. We disagree. When 

Riggs took the money from Smith, he had no basis to believe that 

Smith had taken his necklace or knew where his necklace was. 

Thus, his statement, "when you find my chain, you can have your 

money," does not evince an intent not to permanently deprive 
- 4 - 

Smith of the money. From his statement, the trier of fact could 

have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to keep the 

money if Smith did not find and deliver the chain to him. 

 For these reasons, we conclude that the evidence proved 

beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of robbery and use of 

a firearm in the commission of robbery. 

 Affirmed.