COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

RICARDO CASANOVA FAULK 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0154-97-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 JUNE 9, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK 

Westbrook J. Parker, Judge 

 Michael D. Eberhardt for appellant. 

 Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Ricardo Casanova Faulk (defendant) was convicted of grand 

larceny of a cellular phone, in violation of Code § 18.2-95(2), 

and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation 

of Code § 18.2-248. He contends on appeal the evidence was 

insufficient to prove (1) he intended to permanently deprive the 

owner of the phone, (2) the value of the phone and (3) he 

intended to distribute the cocaine. Because we find the evidence 

sufficient, we affirm. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in this 

case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential 

value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 We will reverse his convictions only if they are plainly 

wrong or without evidence to support them. See Code § 8.01-680. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 Appellant contends the Commonwealth did not prove he intended to 

permanently deprive the victim of the phone and, therefore, 

larceny was not established. "Larceny is defined as the wrongful 

or fraudulent taking of personal goods of some intrinsic value, 

belonging to another, without his assent, and with the intention 

to deprive the owner thereof permanently." Jones v. 

Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 295, 300, 349 S.E.2d 414, 417 (1986). 

"Intent is the purpose formed in a person's mind which may, and 

often must, be inferred from the facts and circumstances in a 

particular case." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 

137, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). The circumstances of this case 

show defendant opened a cellular account and obtained a phone 

using a false name and Social Security number. He was told to 

return the phone after several days, but neither defendant nor 

the phone ever returned. The trier of fact was entitled to infer 

defendant's intent was to keep the phone. 

 Appellant next contends the Commonwealth did not prove the 

phone was worth $200 or more and analogizes his case to Walls v. 

Commonwealth, 248 Va. 480, 450 S.E.2d 363 (1994). In Walls two 

used television sets were stolen. In an effort to establish 

value, the Commonwealth presented the opinion testimony of an 

employee of the company that had owned the televisions. The 

witness was not familiar with the market value of televisions, 

lacked opportunity to make himself familiar, did not know the 

original price of the televisions and could not estimate their 
- 3 - 

depreciation. In the instant matter, two clerks working at the 

cellular phone store from which the phone was stolen testified. 

Their profession was phone sales. They were very familiar with 

the phone market and the value of phones. They testified the 

phone was worth $300 when new, and it was still in good working 

condition. Defendant presented no evidence contradicting their 

testimony. The trial court was entitled to infer the phone had 

not depreciated more than $100 since sale and, therefore, the 

elements of grand larceny had been satisfied. 

 Appellant finally contends there was insufficient evidence 

to prove he intended to distribute the cocaine found on his 

person. "Because direct proof of [the] intent [to distribute] is 

often impossible, it must be shown by circumstantial evidence." 

Jones v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 93, 100, 474 S.E.2d 825, 828 

(1996). Facts such as the "quantity of drugs and cash possessed, 

the method of packaging, and whether [defendant] himself used 

drugs," Poindexter v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 730, 735, 432 

S.E.2d 527, 530 (1993), are indicative of defendant's intent. 

Defendant was found with over thirteen grams of cocaine packaged 

in sixteen vials and two plastic bags. Captain Wilson of the 

Suffolk Police Department testified the drugs were worth about 

$100 per gram. He also testified thirteen grams was not 

inconsistent with personal use, but the lack of paraphernalia 

connected with personal use, such as razors, lighters or a 

smoking device, indicated the cocaine was for sale. 
- 4 - 

Additionally, the packaging in many small, separate containers 

was consistent with distribution. This evidence provides 

sufficient support for defendant's conviction of possession with 

intent to distribute. 

 Because both of defendant's convictions are not plainly 

wrong or without evidence in support, we affirm. 

 Affirmed.