COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

ROBERT L. BRANCH, S/K/A 

 ROBERT LEVON BRANCH 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1408-96-1 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

 JULY 8, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 

Von L. Piersall, Jr., Judge 

 Brenda C. Spry, Deputy Public Defender, for 

appellant. 

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; 

Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee 

submitting on brief. 

 The defendant was convicted in a bench trial of robbery in 

violation of Code § 18.2-58. On appeal, he challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he was the robber. 

Finding no error, we affirm the conviction. 

 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, as the prevailing party, and grant to it all 

reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Higginbotham 

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

So viewed, the evidence proves that the victim was approached 

from behind and knocked down, a coat was thrown over his head and 

his pockets were emptied. After the robbery, he told the police 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

officers at the scene that he had thirteen dollars in his pocket, 

however, at trial he testified that he had given a friend five 

dollars right before he was attacked. The victim did not see and 

could not identify his assailant. He testified that he "just 

felt the guy on me." 

 Wayne Henson, a friend of the victim, testified that after 

the victim left his house Henson and his cousin were alerted by 

Henson's mother to go see about the victim. When Henson and his 

cousin went down the street, they found the victim on the ground 

with the defendant "over top of" him and "another person there 

but he was standing" nearby. When Henson started towards the 

person standing near the victim, that person ran away. Henson 

testified that in order to get the defendant "off of from on top 

of" the victim "[m]y cousin tackled him" and held him until the 

police arrived. Officers C. T. Durham and Robert Joyner 

testified that, after they arrived on the scene, they arrested 

the defendant and recovered eight dollars from his pocket. 

 The defendant argues that because the evidence proves that 

he was only standing "over top" the victim and fails to prove 

that he was touching the victim, it was insufficient to prove 

that he was the robber. The defendant contends that he was 

merely an observer and that the person who ran from the scene was 

the robber. However, the defendant would have us view the 

evidence and reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the 

light most favorable to him and to disregard the testimony from 
- 3 - 

which the fact finder could reasonably infer that he was the 

robber. In view of the testimony that the victim was on the 

ground, that he "just felt the guy on me," Henson's testimony 

that the defendant was "over top of" the victim, and that his 

cousin "tackled" the defendant in order to get him "from on top 

of" the victim, the evidence was sufficient for the fact finder 

to infer that Henson and his cousin subdued the defendant and 

held him until the officers arrived because the defendant was 

robbing the victim. After the defendant was arrested, he had an 

amount of money on him consistent with the amount that was taken 

from the victim. The fact finder was not required to accept the 

defendant's version and could infer that his story was fabricated 

to conceal his guilt. See Speight v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 

83, 88, 354 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1987) (en banc). Because credible 

evidence supports the trial court's decision, we affirm the 

conviction. 

Affirmed.