COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Bumgardner and Felton 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

TREVEK LAMANE BROOKS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 3399-01-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 NOVEMBER 5, 2002 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE 

James F. Ingram, Judge Designate 

 Joseph R. Winston, Special Appellate Counsel 

(Public Defender Commission, on briefs), for 

appellant. 

 Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney 

General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, 

on brief), for appellee. 

The trial court convicted Trevek Lamane Brooks of 

possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation 

of Code § 18.2-248.1 The defendant contends the evidence is 

insufficient to prove he intended to distribute and at most 

shows an accommodation distribution. Finding the evidence 

sufficient, we affirm the conviction. 

We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences 

therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. 

 

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

designated for publication.

1

 "[I]t shall be unlawful for any person to . . . possess 

with intent to . . . sell, give or distribute a controlled 

substance . . . ." Code § 18.2-248(A). 
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 256 Va. 514, 516, 506 S.E.2d 312, 313 

(1998). While investigating an unrelated complaint, a uniformed 

police officer saw a car parked on the wrong side of the street. 

The defendant sat in the driver's seat, and Tyson Wilson sat in 

the front passenger seat. When the officer approached the 

vehicle, he saw the defendant holding in his hands two clear 

plastic bags full of green leafy material and cash. Wilson had 

a bandana in his hand that contained two pieces of similar plant 

material. 

The officer believed the green leafy material was 

marijuana, and he thought he was observing a drug transaction. 

When he told the two occupants to keep their hands visible, the 

defendant said, "All right, you got me . . . you got me." 

Wilson told the officer that the defendant was showing him 

marijuana and cash he had found. The defendant "took about $5 

worth [of marijuana] and put it in my hand." Wilson testified 

he was not attempting to purchase any marijuana and the 

defendant did not give him any to keep. The marijuana weighed 

6.47 ounces (183.7 grams) and the $186 in cash consisted of one 

$100 bill, one $20, five $10s, and sixteen $1s. The defendant 

had a pager on his belt. At trial he claimed he had just found 

the marijuana and cash wrapped in a towel lying in the middle of 

the street and was showing it to Wilson. No evidence indicated 

the defendant used marijuana. 

- 2 -
In order to prove the defendant possessed marijuana with 

the intent to distribute, the Commonwealth must prove the 

defendant possessed the marijuana contemporaneously with his 

intention to distribute it. Stanley v. Commonwealth, 12 

Va. App. 867, 869, 407 S.E.2d 13, 15 (1991) (en banc). The 

defendant does not dispute that he possessed the marijuana that 

he held in his hands. The undisputed evidence showed that he 

had handed Wilson some of it, "enough to role a blunt." The 

defendant transferred marijuana to Wilson, and that alone 

permits the elemental inference that he intended to do that 

which he did. Schmitt v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 127, 145, 547 

S.E.2d 186, 199 (2001), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 840 (2002). 

 The defendant contends that at most the evidence proved an 

accommodation.2 The contention implicitly concedes the evidence 

was sufficient for conviction. Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 

Va. 214, 219-20, 247 S.E.2d 360, 364 (1978), held Code 

§ 18.2-248(A) creates "a single offense," and Code § 18.2-248(D) 

"provides for the mitigation of punishment." The provision "is 

relevant to the determination of the proper degree of 

punishment, but only after guilt has been established." Id. at 

223, 247 S.E.2d at 365. If the evidence was sufficient to prove 

the transfer was an accommodation, it necessarily proved a 

distribution. 

 

- 3 -

2

 The defendant did not request an accommodation finding at 

trial. Rule 5A:18 controls. 
The evidence permits a finding that the defendant intended 

to distribute the marijuana he held in his hands. Accordingly, 

we affirm. 

 Affirmed. 

- 4 -