COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

PATRICK D. GOLDEN 

v. Record No. 0387-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JANUARY 30, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY 

Russell M. Carneal, Judge Designate 

 Karen M. Vannan (Buxton, Lasris & Vannan, 

P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Patrick D. Golden (defendant) was convicted in a bench trial 

 for possession of cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-250(a). 

On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

to support the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial 

court. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and we 

recite only those facts necessary to a disposition of this 

appeal. 

 Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine 

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). The judgment of a trial court, sitting 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict 

and will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence 

to support it. Id. The credibility of a witness, the weight 

accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from 

proven facts are matters solely for the fact finder's 

determination. Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 379 

S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989). 

 While seated in marked police vehicles, parked side by side 

in an "area where a lot of drug sales are made," York County 

Sheriff investigator Ekstein and Virginia State Trooper Tate 

observed defendant standing approximately five feet "off to the 

right-hand side [of] a tree." As they watched, defendant walked 

to a nearby basketball court and began "playing basketball, 

dribbling a basketball," with "several young kids." However, 

"every once in a while" defendant would "look back at the base of 

the tree as if there was . . . something there." This behavior 

aroused the officers' suspicions, and they walked towards the 

tree, noticing a "white piece of tissue paper" at its "fork," 

"less than a foot from the ground." Ekstein opened the opaque 

tissue and discovered a "plastic wrapper" which contained "a 

white rock-like substance," the drugs in issue. 

 Defendant then approached the officers and in subsequent 

conversation claimed that an unidentified person had thrown the 

tissue to the ground and left the area just prior to their 

arrival. Thinking that the tissue contained crack cocaine, 

defendant placed it "into the little crack . . . between the 
- 3 - 

branches of the tree," because he "didn't want any of the kids to 

get ahold of it." Defendant explained that his cousin had 

"brought him to the area," but was unable to state the purpose of 

the visit. 

 "To convict a defendant of possession of illegal drugs, the 

Commonwealth must prove that the defendant was aware of the 

presence and character of the drugs, and that he intentionally 

and consciously possessed them." Albert v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. 

App. 734, 741, 347 S.E.2d 534, 538 (1986). "Possession of a 

controlled drug gives rise to an inference of the defendant's 

knowledge of its character." Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. 

App. 87, 101, 390 S.E.2d 491, 498-99 (1990). "The duration of 

the possession is immaterial . . . ." Gillis v. Commonwealth, 

215 Va. 298, 302, 208 S.E.2d 768, 771 (1974). 

"'[K]nowledge . . . may be proved by evidence of acts, 

declarations or conduct of the accused from which the inference 

may be fairly drawn that [the accused] knew of the existence of 

narcotics at the place where they were found.'" Hairston v. 

Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 183, 186, 360 S.E.2d 893, 895 (1987) 

(alterations in original) (citation omitted). 

 Here, defendant admitted actual possession of the tissue, 

believing that cocaine was hidden inside. Although defendant 

stated that he attempted to remove it from the children's reach, 

he placed the tissue just a foot from the ground in plain view, 

and made no attempt to inform the officers of the circumstances 

when they arrived in the police vehicles. Instead, he engaged in 
- 4 - 

basketball play with children, while keeping watch over the tree. 

 Such evidence, considered with the entire record, is 

sufficient to support a finding that defendant was aware of the 

presence and character of the drug concealed in the tissue, 

intentionally and consciously possessing it. Accordingly, we 

affirm the conviction. 

 Affirmed.