COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Frank Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

JOSHUA LUCAS PERKINS MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1025-03-1 J UDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH E. Everett Bagnell, Judge Nathan A. Chapman (Law Offices of William B. Parkhurst, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Susan L. Parrish, Assistant Atto rney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Joshua Lucas Perkins contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted statutory burglary. See Code § 18.2-91. We disagr ee and affirm the conviction. I. When a defendant challenges th e sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider the evidence in the light most favora ble to the prevailing party at trial, the Commonwealth, and accord to that ev idence all reasonable inferences that are fairly deducible. Higginbotham v. Commonwealth , 216 Va. 349, 3 52, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1 975). So viewed, the evidence proved Perkins went to his sister’s ho use one afternoon and began “banging” on the back door. A neighbor testified that Perkins then removed a screen from a bathroom window and unsuccessfully tried to open the window. He next went to a bedroom wi ndow and “pulled [the screen] off” that window but failed to open the window. Pe rkins then went to a shed in his sister’s

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - yard, retrieved something having th e appearance of a pipe or stick, and began “beating on the lock” of the back door. After watchi ng these events, the neighbor as ked what he was doing. Perkins responded that this was his siste r’s house. When the neighbor to ld him his sister was not home, Perkins walked to the front of the house. The neighbor heard more loud noise but did not investigate further. Perkins’s sister testified that, when she re turned home, her neighbo r informed her of her brother’s conduct. She then noticed the screen had been removed from her bedroom window and other window screens were dented. She also testified th at her front door “was a little bit hard to open” and that it was not in this condition when she earlier left her house. Perkins’s sister testified that she had not give n him permission to enter her house and that he later told her he “did try and br eak in [the] house.” She testifie d that Perkins was a “drug addict” and that he told her he was tryi ng to break into the house becau se “he was jonesing,” which she explained was a “street term” meanin g he needed “a fix.” On cross- examination, she testified that, before these events occurred at her house, she told thei r mother Perkins had a drug problem. She also testified Perkins was not happy a bout her conversation with their mother. Perkins, a convicted felon, testified he went to confront his sister afte r learning she told their mother he was a drug addict. He testified that he thought she was home because he knew she stayed home to watch her children and also because her car was in the driveway. He also testified he heard noises coming from inside the hous e and removed the screens to look inside the window s. He then went to the backyard, got a shovel from the shed, and hit the door with the shovel. After he spoke to the neighbor, he went to the fron t door and kicked it a few times before leaving. Perkins denied telling his sister that he tried to break into the house or that he was “jonesin g.” He sa id he was furious but he had not ha d any heroin that day.- 3 - The trial judge found that Perk ins’s testimony was not credible , found evidence sufficient to satisfy the specific intent to commit larceny, an d convicted Perkins of a ttempted statutory burglary. II. Perkins contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he intended to commit larceny and did not exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. To support the convict ion for attempted statutory burglar y, the Commonwealth was required to prove an attempt to break and en ter the dwelling with intent to commit larceny. Code § 18.2-91 and Code § 18.2-26. “Intent is the purpose formed in a person’s mind and may be, and frequently is, shown by circumstances . . . [, such as] a person’s conduct or . . . his statements.” Barrett v. Commonwealth , 210 Va. 153, 156, 169 S.E. 2d 449, 451 (1969). More over, the Supreme Court has held that the trier of f act “may draw reasonable inferences from the eviden ce that the perpetrator intended to commit one fe lony rather than anothe r.” Black v. Commonwealth , 222 Va. 838, 841, 284 S.E.2d 608, 609 (1981). The evidence in this case was sufficient to pr ove Perkins attempted to break into the house at a time when he needed “a fi x” for his drug addiction. Thus , the trial judge could infer that Perkins knew his sister was not in the house when he attempted to enter because the evidence proved Perkins continued his effo rts to break into the house even when no one responded to his “banging” and after the neighbor in formed him his sister was not at home. We hold, therefore, that the trial judge, as trier of fact, could infer beyond a r easonable doubt from Pe rkins’s conduct and his drug addiction that he intended to steal money or items to su pport his addiction. Perkins also contends that his explanation for his actions demonstrated his intent was otherwise. The trial judge, howev er, was not required to accept Perk ins’s testimony that he merely wanted to speak with his sister . “The credibility of the witnesses and th e weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has th e opportunity to see and hear that evidence- 4 - as it is presented.” Sandoval v. Commonwealth , 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). Thus, in his role of ju dging witness credibility, the trial judge was entitled to disbelieve Perkins’s self-serving testimony. Marable v. Commonwealth , 27 Va. App. 505, 509- 10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998). Indeed, the trial judg e expressly found Pe rkins not to be a credible witness. For these reasons, we hold th at the evidence was su fficient to prove be yond a reasonable doubt that Perk ins was guilty of attemp ted statutory burglary. Affirmed

.