COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

JESSIE LEE BLACKWELL, s/k/a 

 JESSE LEE BLACKWELL 

v. Record No. 1992-94-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JANUARY 23, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

William R. Shelton, Judge 

 A.R. Bowles, IV (Bowles and Bowles, on brief), 

 for appellant. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; 

Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Jessie Lee Blackwell was convicted in a bench trial of 

statutory burglary. Blackwell contends that the evidence was 

insufficient to sustain the conviction. Because the defendant 

failed to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence issue for 

appeal in accordance with Rule 5A:18, we do not address the 

merits of the issue. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 

 At the close of the Commonwealth's case, counsel for the 

codefendant moved to "strike all the evidence," and counsel for 

the defendant adopted this motion on behalf of the defendant. 

The trial court overruled the motion with respect to the breaking 

and entering charge. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 -2- 

 Each defendant testified on his own behalf, but neither 

renewed the motion to strike at the conclusion of the case. 

However, counsel for the codefendant, arguing that the evidence 

did not show that the codefendant had any knowledge of the stolen 

check, moved "the Court to set aside its decision and consider 

the evidence as to [the codefendant]." Counsel for the defendant 

did not adopt this motion or make a separate motion to set aside 

the verdict. 

 "[W]hen a defendant elects to present evidence on his 

behalf, he waives the right to stand on his motion to strike the 

evidence made at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case." 

McQuinn v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 753, 755, 460 S.E.2d 624, 

625 (1995) (en banc) (quoting White v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 

231, 233, 348 S.E.2d 866, 867 (1986)). Here, the defendant took 

the stand on his own behalf. He did not move or renew the motion 

to strike the evidence at the conclusion of the case or argue 

that the evidence was insufficient as to the statutory burglary 

charge, see Lewis v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 574, 383 S.E.2d 736 

(1989), or join in or adopt the codefendant's motion to set aside 

the verdict. Accordingly, the defendant failed to preserve the 

sufficiency of the evidence question for appeal. 

 Rule 5A:18 shall not bar consideration of an issue on appeal 

"for good cause shown or to enable [this Court] to attain the 

ends of justice." Rule 5A:18. In the present case, no good 

cause has been shown that prevented the defendant from moving to 
 -3- 

strike the evidence at the conclusion of his case, or from moving 

to set aside the verdict. Moreover, we do not find it necessary 

to consider the issue in order to attain the ends of justice. 

See McQuinn, 20 Va. App. at 755, 460 S.E.2d at 625. 

 We affirm the defendant's conviction. 

Affirmed.