COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

WILLIAM J. CULLIPHER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2422-01-1 JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR. 

 OCTOBER 15, 2002 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK 

Rodham T. Delk, Jr., Judge 

 Timothy E. Miller, Public Defender (Office 

 of the Public Defender, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General 

(Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 William J. Cullipher was convicted in a bench trial of two 

counts of statutory burglary, in violation of Code § 18.2-91, and 

one count of grand larceny, in violation of Code § 18.2-95. On 

appeal he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a 

conviction for statutory burglary and grand larceny. For the 

following reasons we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

I. BACKGROUND

 On October 18, 2000, at approximately 8:15 a.m., Sheila 

Strickland heard her kitchen door open, then slam against the 

wall. When she entered the room, she discovered that the screen 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.
door was propped open. Seeing nothing else, she closed the door 

and went about her morning routine. At approximately 9:00 a.m., 

Ms. Strickland prepared to leave the house and discovered that 

her purse was missing. Later that evening, with the assistance 

of her mother and the police, her purse was discovered in her 

neighbor's trash. Missing from the purse were her wallet, some 

blank checks, and credit cards. 

 Patricia Waterfield lived four houses away from Ms. 

Strickland. On that same day, she came home for lunch to 

discover the side door ajar. Upon entering the house, she found 

that her VCR, jewelry valued at approximately $8,000, and a dark 

blue nylon carry-on/gym bag with red piping were missing. Upon 

this discovery, she notified police officers who were on her 

property and currently investigating the incident at Ms. 

Strickland's home. 

 Earlier that morning, between 8:00 a.m. to 8:15 a.m., 

William Cullipher knocked on Naydene Mitchell's door. Ms. 

Mitchell is a neighbor of both Ms. Strickland and Ms. 

Waterfield. Upon answering the door, Cullipher asked her if her 

house was the Jordan residence. She told him no. She further 

stated that none of the neighbors were named Jordan and she knew 

of no one by that name. Cullipher left and walked in the 

direction of Sheila Strickland's and Patricia Waterfield's 

homes. He carried nothing in his hands at that time. 

- 2 -
 Roger Winsor, another neighbor, saw Cullipher between eight 

and nine o'clock that morning. Mr. Winsor saw him running 

across the lawn carrying a "[b]lue bag, duffel bag-type thing." 

Cullipher was moving in a direction away from the victims' 

houses and toward Ms. Mitchell's house. He returned to Ms. 

Mitchell's house to request a ride. Ms. Mitchell declined and 

told him that he could use the phone at the gas station up the 

road. She observed him pick up a bag that "was blue with a 

little bit of red on it, kind of a carry on bag." Ms. Mitchell 

could not see the bag initially because Cullipher had placed it 

behind a bush. However, she observed him retrieve the bag and 

walk away in the direction away from the victims’ houses. 

 As Cullipher left the property, Jo Anne Rowland saw him 

from her porch. He asked her if she knew where the Jordans 

lived. Ms. Rowland observed that Cullipher was carrying a dark 

colored bag. She could not provide further details regarding 

it. Approximately an hour later, Mr. Winsor saw Cullipher at 

the McDonald's on Holland Road with the same bag he observed 

earlier. 

 On June 7, 2001, Cullipher was convicted of two counts of 

statutory burglary, in violation of Code § 18.2-91, and one 

count of grand larceny, in violation of Code § 18.2-95. He 

appeals that conviction. 

- 3 -
II. ANALYSIS

Where the sufficiency of the evidence is 

challenged after conviction, it is our duty 

to consider it in the light most favorable 

to the Commonwealth and give it all 

reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

therefrom. We should affirm the judgment 

unless it appears from the evidence that the 

judgment is plainly wrong or without 

evidence to support it. 

Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 

537 (1975). 

 Cullipher contends that the evidence was insufficient to 

show that he was the person who committed the burglaries and 

larceny. He argues that the only evidence purportedly linking 

him to the crimes was possession of a bag, roughly similar to a 

bag that was stolen, but was insufficiently identifiable to 

prove his guilt. In support of his argument, Cullipher relies 

on Griffith v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 50, 189 S.E.2d 366 (1972). 

 In Griffith, an apartment was burglarized and the 

investigation revealed that there was missing, among other 

things, a brownish cardboard carton and an orange colored 

sweater. On the same day of the burglary, an employee of the 

apartment complex saw Griffith carrying a cardboard box covered 

with what appeared to be a yellowish scarf to go on an end 

table. He also stated it could have been a scarf, sweater, or 

anything. 

 In reversing Griffith's conviction, the Supreme Court held 

that 

- 4 -
in this case the evidence did not show that 

the goods the defendant was seen carrying 

were the goods which had been stolen. All 

the evidence showed was that the defendant 

was near the scene of the crime on the day 

it occurred and that he was carrying an 

ordinary cardboard box covered by something 

roughly similar to an article which had been 

stolen. While his actions were suspicious, 

the evidence in total was not sufficient to 

establish his guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

Griffith, 213 Va. at 51, 189 S.E.2d at 367. Griffith's 

conviction was reversed because the cardboard box and the item 

covering it were not sufficiently identifiable. Griffith was 

seen carrying two very ordinary items. Those circumstances are 

not present in this case. 

 Ms. Waterfield identified a dark blue nylon carry-on/duffel 

bag with red piping as one of the items stolen from her home. 

Immediately after and within the vicinity of the burglaries, 

Cullipher was identified by several neighborhood residents as 

carrying a dark colored bag. Ms. Mitchell, who had contact 

twice with Cullipher, informed the police that she observed him 

with a bag that "was blue with a little bit of red on it, kind 

of a carry on bag." 

 Unlike the ordinary cardboard box and covering discussed in 

Griffith, the red piping found on the bag made it sufficiently 

identifiable. Cullipher was identified by neighborhood 

residents as being in the area at the time the burglaries were 

committed. Coupled with the fact that he was observed in 

- 5 -
possession of a blue bag "with a little bit of red on it," the 

evidence was sufficient to sustain his burglary and grand 

larceny convictions. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 

- 6 -