COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Petty, Alston and Senior Judge Coleman

ANTONIO BUENO RODRIGUEZ, S/K/A

 ANTONIO BUENO-RODRIGUEZ

MEMORANDUM OPINION∗ BY

v. Record No. 1970-10-4 JUDGE ROSSIE D. ALSTON, JR.

NOVEMBER 15, 2011

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

Richard B. Potter, Judge

(George J. Wooditch Jr.; Anderson, Graham & Wooditch P.C., on 

brief), for appellant.

(Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Joshua M. Didlake, 

Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee 

submitting on brief.

Antonio Bueno Rodriguez appeals his convictions for eight counts of aggravated sexual 

battery in violation of Code § 18.2-67.3 and one count of indecent liberties in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-370. On appeal, Rodriguez argues that the trial court erred on two grounds. First, 

Rodriguez contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence over his 

objection. Second, Rodriguez asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motions to strike for 

insufficient evidence. Because we find that Rodriguez failed to comply with Rule 5A:20(e)’s 

requirement to provide sufficient legal authorities in support of his arguments for both 

assignments of error, these arguments do not merit appellate consideration. Epps v. 

Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 687, 718, 626 S.E.2d 912, 926-27 (2006) (en banc); Buchanan v. 

Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992) (holding that unsupported assertions 

 ∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 -

of error “do not merit appellate consideration”). Further, “‘[s]tatements unsupported by 

argument, authority, or citations to the record do not merit appellate consideration.’” Budnick v. 

Budnick, 42 Va. App. 823, 833-34, 595 S.E.2d 50, 55 (2004) (quoting Roberts v. Roberts, 41 

Va. App. 513, 527, 586 S.E.2d 290, 297 (2003)). Accordingly, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND1

In late 2008 and early 2009, nine-year-old A.M. was living with her family and 

Rodriguez. After watching a video at school addressing appropriate and inappropriate physical 

contact between children and adults, A.M. told her mother that Rodriguez had been “touching 

[her] parts and that felt really bad.” A.M.’s mother confronted Rodriguez and ordered him to 

leave the family’s home. A.M.’s mother also notified the police. Rodriguez agreed to speak 

with Detective Brazier of the City of Manassas Police Department as part of the police

investigation regarding A.M.’s complaint. Not being able to speak Spanish, Detective Brazier 

asked Detective Perla to interpret the interview with Rodriguez, who did not speak English as his 

primary language. During the interrogation, Rodriguez eventually admitted to some, but not all, 

of the allegations that A.M. had related to the police. Subsequently, Rodriguez was charged with 

one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery in violation of Code § 18.2-67.5, two counts of 

indecent liberties in violation of Code § 18.2-370, and eight counts of aggravated sexual battery

in violation of Code § 18.2-67.3.

At trial, A.M. testified to the sexual contact between her and Rodriguez. When Detective 

Brazier began to testify to statements Rodriguez made during the interrogation, Rodriguez 

objected, claiming that the interpreted statements were hearsay because Detective Brazier heard 

 1 As the parties are fully conversant with the record in this case and because this 

memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, this opinion recites only those facts and 

incidents of the proceedings as are necessary to the parties’ understanding of the disposition of this 

appeal.
- 3 -

them from Detective Perla, and not Rodriguez himself. The trial court overruled the objection. 

After the Commonwealth rested, Rodriguez moved to strike the evidence. The trial court 

sustained a motion to strike as to the attempted aggravated sexual battery and to one count of 

indecent liberties, but denied the motion as to eight counts of aggravated sexual battery and to 

one other count of indecent liberties. At the close of all the evidence, Rodriguez renewed his 

motion to strike the remaining nine counts. The trial court denied the motion and submitted the 

case to the jury following closing arguments. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all eight 

counts of aggravated sexual battery and the remaining count of indecent liberties. The jury 

recommended a sentence of eighteen months in prison for each of the aggravated sexual battery 

counts and one year in prison for the indecent liberties count. The trial court sentenced 

Rodriguez consistent with the jury’s recommendation. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Rodriguez assigns as error the trial court’s decision to overrule his hearsay 

objection during Detective Brazier’s testimony and the trial court’s decision to deny his motions 

to strike.

Rule 5A:20 contains the requirements for an appellant’s opening brief and, pertinent to 

this case, states that an appellant’s opening brief shall contain: “(e) [t]he standard of review and 

the argument (including principles of law and authorities relating to each assignment of error.” 

We have repeatedly held that an appellant’s failure to comply with these requirements constitutes 

a waiver of this Court’s consideration of an assignment of error. Montalbano v. Richmond Ford, 

LLC, 57 Va. App. 235, 249, 701 S.E.2d 72, 78 (2010) (quoting Parks v. Parks, 52 Va. App. 663, 

664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008)). Rodriguez did not provide sufficient legal authorities to 

support either assignment of error. He did not cite any cases to support his first assignment of 

error. And, despite an abundance of potentially persuasive legal analysis and authority, see 12 
- 4 -

A.L.R. 4th 1016, the cases Rodriguez cited to support his second assignment of error contained 

only vague, general statements for assessing the sufficiency of evidence on appeal.

2 We find 

that Rodriguez’s failure to adhere to Rule 5A:20(e)’s requirements is significant for both 

assignments of error and consequently treat them both as waived. Parks, 52 Va. App. at 664, 666 

S.E.2d at 548. Because Rodriguez’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20 renders both of his 

assignments of error unfit for appellate consideration, we affirm.

Affirmed.

 2 While we recognize that the issue of whether rules of evidence regarding hearsay apply 

to a translated confession has not been addressed by an appellate opinion in Virginia, it is not a 

novel legal question. Courts of other states have addressed this issue, and both their legal 

rationales and their conclusions are divided. Although Rodriguez recited the definition of 

hearsay, he failed to provide us the critical legal link between the argument he makes and the 

conclusion he wishes us to reach.