COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judg e Fitzpatrick, Judges Bumgardner and Frank

JAY FRANKLIN HOGSTON MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 3232-02-3 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK NOVEMBER 25, 2003 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY John J. McGrath, Jr., Judge (R. Darren Bostic; Bos tic & Bostic, PC, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney Gene ral; Margaret W. Reed, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.
Jay Franklin Hogston (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial of po ssession of cocaine, in violation of Code § 18.2-250(A)(a). He conte nds the evidence was in sufficient to prove he constructively possessed the cocaine. For the following reasons, we affirm appellant’s conviction.
I. BACKGROUND “When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal of a criminal conviction, we must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and accord to the evidence all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The jury’s verdict will not be distur bed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Hucks v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 168, 177, 531 S.E.2d 658, 662 (2000) (quoting Clark v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 406, 409-10, 517 S.E.2d 260, 261 (1999)).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Properly viewed, the eviden ce established that on December 27, 2001, appellant was arrested on outstanding warrants after he exited from a car at the Family Convenience Store. Appellant was the sole occupant and driver of the car. After the arre st, Officer Christopher S. Showalter searched appellant’s car where he f ound a crack pipe and a small corner of a plastic baggie containing cocaine. Showalter found th e crack pipe “in the driver’s door in a compartment there” and when asked to describe the compartment in more detail stated, “it was like a little panel there on the side of the door.” Showalter also sa id the pipe was in plain view, “when I opened the door I looked down and there it was.” He also recovered a small plastic baggie corner wh ich contained white residue which was located on the, [sic] it would still be on the driver’s side floor board but up on the side of the hump which is normally where your gear shift would be. It was like st uck to the carpet right in front of the driver’s seat. Appellant was indicted for possession of cocaine. At trial, the titled owner of the car, Alvin Dove, testified he gave possession of the ca r to appellant two months earlier in October. Appellant was making payments to him and “w hen [appellant] got it paid for the car was [appellant’s].” When shown the pipe and baggie, Dove said they were not in the car when he gave it to appellant. Appellant testified he did not own the car he was driving the night of his arrest and denied it was his cocaine or his crack pipe. He said he lent the car to Andre Pharr, who drove it to see a friend, Matthew Swain, and that Pharr and Swain used drugs. Neither Pharr nor Swain testified at tr ial. Appellant admitted he wa s a five-time convicted felon. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and appellant appeals that conviction.
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Appellant contends the evidence was insu fficient to convict him of possessing the cocaine because the Commonwealth failed to ex clude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We disagree.- 3 - “The statement that circumstantial eviden ce must exclude every reasonable theory of innocence is simply another way of stating that the Commonwealth has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 513, 578 S.E.2d 781, 785 (2003). “Where circumstantial evidence is sufficien t to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, it is sufficient to s upport a conviction. The hypotheses which must be thus excluded are those which flow from the evidence itself, and not from the imaginations of defense counsel.” Cook v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 427, 433, 309 S.E.2d 325, 328 (1983) (citing Turner v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 141, 148-49, 235 S.E.2d 357, 361 (1977)). “To support a conviction based upon constructive possession, ‘the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of both the presence and character of the substance and that it was subject to his dominion and control.’” Langston v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 276, 285, 504 S.E.2d 380, 384 (1998) (citations omitted). “In its role of judging witness credibility, the fact finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to concl ude that the accused is lying to conceal his guilt.” Marable v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998) (citing Speight v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 83, 88, 354 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1987) ( en banc )). Credible evidence supports the jury’s findi ng that appellant possessed the pi pe and baggie containing the cocaine residue. Appellant was th e driver and sole occupant of the car. While not the titled owner, he was purchasing the car and had sole possession of it fo r two months. The car’s owner stated the pipe and baggie were not his and they we re not in the car when he gave it to appellant. Additionally, the pipe and baggie were in plain viewon the driver’s side of the car. The jury was entitled to disregard the testimony of appellant, a five-time convicted felon, that he lent the car to- 4 - someone else and that the pipe and cocaine bel onged to someone else. Thus, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant knowin gly possessed the cocaine at the time of his

arrest. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed.