COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Lemons and Frank 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

BILLY DEANGELO WILLIAMS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1699-98-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 OCTOBER 19, 1999 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Junius P. Fulton, III, Judge 

 Robert Moody, IV (Krinick, Segall, Moody & 

Lewis, on brief), for appellant. 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

On appeal from his conviction of robbery, in violation of 

Code § 18.2-58, Billy Deangelo Williams contends that the trial 

court erred in denying his motion to strike the evidence. 

Because the evidence sufficiently supports a finding of guilt, 

we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 "On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom." Martin v. Commonwealth, 

4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). On February 

20, 1998, Williams entered a Norfolk bank and handed teller 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Evette Walker a note. Thinking it was a check, Walker opened 

the note, which read, "This is a robbery. Give us the money and 

know [sic] one will be shot." When Walker did not respond to 

the note immediately, Williams reached over the counter, grabbed 

money from her cash drawer, and exited the bank. In doing so, 

he grabbed a bundle of cash containing a dye pack. No dye was 

found on Williams. 

 Walker identified Williams from a photo array shown to her 

a few days after the robbery and identified him in person at 

trial. She testified that she was sure of her identification 

because she and he had made eye contact during the robbery. 

 Robin Peskopos, the teller working next to Walker, 

witnessed the incident. She also identified Williams 

positively, both from a photo array and in person at trial. The 

Commonwealth also introduced still photographs, gleaned from the 

bank security video cameras, that showed the robber. 

 A jury convicted Williams of robbery, in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-58, and sentenced him to eighteen years imprisonment. 

 Williams contends that the evidence is insufficient to 

prove him guilty of robbery. He argues that the witness 

identifications were unreliable. However, both tellers picked 

Williams out of photo arrays a few days after the robbery, and 

both positively identified him at trial. Walker testified that 

she would not forget Williams' face and that she had made eye 

contact with him. Walker stood directly across from Williams 

- 2 -
during the robbery, and Peskopos was standing beside her in the 

next teller station. These identifications were not inherently 

incredible and were accepted by the jury. They alone 

sufficiently support the conviction. Moreover, the Commonwealth 

did not rely solely upon the witness identifications but, in 

addition, introduced still photographs of the robber taken 

during the robbery by the bank's surveillance cameras. 

 In his brief, Williams has challenged the admissibility of 

the identifications by the tellers. However, we awarded no 

appeal on this issue and will not now consider it. See Rule 

5A:12(c) and Rule 5A:18. 

 Williams also argues that the jury's verdicts were 

inconsistent and show that the jury compromised on its verdict 

and did not address the evidence. The jury convicted Williams 

of robbery, but acquitted him of a companion charge of use of a 

firearm in the commission of a felony. The evidence, however, 

supports the verdicts. The jury believed Williams was the 

robber. Walker's testimony that she saw what she thought was 

the handle of a handgun, however, may not have convinced the 

jury that Walker actually possessed a firearm. See Code 

§ 18.2-53.1; Sprouse v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 548, 551-52, 

453 S.E.2d 303, 306 (1995). Furthermore, an inconsistent 

verdict is not grounds for reversal. 

[T]he United States Supreme Court addressed 

the issue of legal inconsistency in the case 

of United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 

- 3 -
(1984). The Court unanimously reaffirmed 

. . . that a criminal defendant convicted by 

a jury on one count could not attack that 

conviction because it was inconsistent with 

the jury's verdict of acquittal on another 

count. 

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 647, 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 

(1988). 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Affirmed.

- 4 -