COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges O’Brien, A tLee and Senior Judge Frank Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

INDIA FELICIA VALENTINE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1034-16-1 JUDGE RICHARD Y. ATLEE, JR. MARCH 21, 2017 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Michelle J. Atkins, Judge G. Anthony Yancey (Law Offices of G. Anthony Yancey, on brief), for appellant. Aaron J. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herrin g, Attorney General, on br ief), for appellee.
A jury in the Circuit Court of t he City of Norfolk convicted ap pellant India Felicia Valentine of felony murder 1 and abuse or neglect of an incap acitated adult. She received a total active sentence of forty-two y ears in prison. On appeal, she a rgues that the jury erred in finding the evidence sufficient for ei ther conviction. For the followi ng reasons, we affirm.
I. B ACKGROUND For approximately five years, a ppellant lived on-site in an ap artment building in order to provide care for 77-year-old Ger tha Curry, with whom she shared an apartment. She also served as property manager and was respo nsible for cooking meals for t he other eight building

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.

1 Appellant does not raise a dist inct challenge to her felony mu rder conviction; she argues that the Commonwealth “faile d to prove beyond a reasonable doub t that the underlying offense of abuse or neglect of an incap acitated adult occurred.” Accor dingly, we do not need to independently discuss the law of felony murder, as both convict ions turn on evidence of neglect.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - residents. Her apartment cont ained the only stove in the build ing. She lived rent-free in exchange for her caregiving role. One weekend in September 2013, appellant traveled to Washingto n, D.C. to visit her daughter, leaving her sister and n iece in charge of her caregiv ing duties. When appellant’s sister arrived at the apartment t o cook on Sunday, she discovered Curr y had died. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was “inanition 2 and dehydration due to nutri tional neglect with contributing causes medical neglect, combined antihistamine and dextromethorphan intoxication, subacute blunt force head traum a, and degenerative brain diseas e.” Curry measured four foot eight and weighed only forty-five pounds at the time of her dea th. The coroner testified that this was the lowest body mass index she had ever seen, and “[i]t see med as if there were virtually no muscle or fat left on her.” Thi s weight loss would have occurr ed over “weeks, probably months.” Curry’s eyeballs had collapsed from dehydration. Her body displayed numerous other indications of starvation and c hronic dehydration. The coroner concluded that Curry’s cause of death was homicide, given that Curry was “dependent on a careta ker for her activities of daily living, provision of food, water, med ical care, and administrat ion of medications.” Appellant had extensive experi ence working in nursing homes an d hospital settings, and was previously a licensed certi fied nursing assistant. In Marc h 2013, she took Curry to the emergency room because she ha d been experiencing confusion and insomnia. Curry’s medical records from this visit i ndicated she weighed 105 pounds, which appellant characterized as her “baseline weight for years.” At the time of this visit, a doct or told appellant that Curry needed regular care from a physician. D espite this, appellant did not take Curry to a doctor or seek medical care for Curry at any poi nt before her death six months later.

2 “[I]nanition is the state of weakness and debilitation caused by the lack of proper nutrition.” Correll v. Com monwealth, 269 Va. 3, 11, 607 S.E.2d 119, 123 (2005).- 3 - Appellant told an investigator t hat Curry “was like an adopted grandmother to me, you know, I would do anything to take care of her, make sure I took care of her needs. I loved her.” Appellant also described herself as Curry’s primary caregiver a nd provider of home health care. She stated that she had notice d Curry was “slowing down” over t he seven to ten days preceding her death and her appetite had lightened. She acknowledged tha t Curry had lost weight. She noted that when she left for he r trip, she thought Curry looked as if she were “about to pass away.” Despite these observat ions, appellant did not take Curr y to a doctor or seek other medical assistance for her befo re leaving for her trip, or aler t her sister or niece that this might be
necessary. II. A NALYSIS Appellant argues that the evide nce was insufficient to show tha t Curry died as a result of her neglect. “On appeal, we ‘c onsider the evidence and all rea sonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom in the light most fa vorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.’” Wagoner v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 229, 233, 756 S.E.2d 165, 167 (2014) (quoting Bass v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 470, 475, 525 S.E.2d 921, 924 (2000)), af f’d, 289 Va. 476, 770 S.E.2d 479 (2015). “This Court must revie w the jury’s factual conclus ions with the highest degree of appellate deference, deferring t o the jury’s responsibility to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw r easonable inferences from basi c facts to ultimate facts.” Id. at 256, 756 S.E.2d at 179. Code § 18.2-369 states in relevant part that it is “unlawful fo r any responsible person to abuse or neglect any incapacitate d adult” and that “[a]ny respo nsible person who abuses or neglects an incapacitated adult in violation of this section an d the abuse or neglect results in the death of the incapacitated adu lt is guilty of a Class 3 felony. ” The statute defines “neglect” as “the knowing and willful failure by a responsible person to pro vide treatment, care, goods or- 4 - services which results in inju ry to the health or endangers the safety of an incapacitated adult.” For such failure to be “willful,” it must be “an intentional, p urposeful act or omission in the care of an incapacitated adult by one res ponsible for that adult’s c are.” Correll, 269 Va. at 13, 607 S.E.2d at 124 (emphasis added). The jury did not err in finding t hat Curry’s death was the res ult of appellant’s neglect. The primary cause of Curry’s death was severe malnutrition and dehydration. Over the course of six months, her weight dropped from 105 to 45 pounds. Curry de pended on her caregiver, appellant, for her daily need s, including food, water, and medi cal care. Despite a physician’s direction that Curry needed rout ine medical attention, appellan t did not take Curry to a doctor again in the interven ing months before her death. At the time of her death, Curry was emaciated, her body collapsing in on itsel f. In the photographs taken soo n after her death, Curry is skeletal. Despite appellant’s claim that s he consistently provided Curry with food and water and that Curry’s appetite had only wane d in the past week or so, her dra stic weight loss indicated that she had been deprived of adequate nu trition for months. Given this evidence, the coroner concluded that the cause of death was homicide. The jury did not err in accepting that conclusion and convicting appellant.
III. C ONCLUSION The evidence was sufficient to s how that Curry’s death was the result of appellant’s neglect. Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed.