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

CHARLES BATTLE, JR. MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2934-02-1 JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR. MARCH 23, 2004 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH E. Everett Bagnell, Judge Stephen B. Plott (Co llins & Plott, PLC, on brief), for appellant. Margaret W. Reed, Assistant Atto rney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Charles Battle, Jr. (appellant) appeals his convi ctions by the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth. On July 23, 2002, he was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of Code § 18.2-248; sale or distribution of cocaine to a person under eighteen, in violation of Code § 18.2-255; and distribution of a c ontrolled substance within 1000 feet of school property, in violat ion of Code § 18.2-255.2. He cont ends that the tria l court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to convict him of possessin g cocaine with the inte nt to distribute, of distributing cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, and of distributing cocaine to a minor. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. BACKGROUND On the morning of November 19, 2001, Officer C.B. Honeyc utt was conducting a narcotics surveillance operation at the corner of Elm Aven ue and Twenty-First St reet in the City of

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Portsmouth. Using binoculars from a van parked ac ross from a store, Honeycutt observed appellant in and around the area all morning. He testified that at 10:28 a.m. he observed a blue Honda Accord stop at the corner where appella nt stood along with Jamar Roots, a minor. Appellant handed Roots a plastic baggie containing what Honeycutt believed to be a rock of crack cocaine. Roots took the item, walked to the Hond a, opened the passenger door, and handed the ite m to the driver. The driver took the item from Roots, and handed him “what appeared to be a green and white piece of paper,” which Honeycutt suspected to be U.S. curr ency. The officer observed the Honda drive east on Fayette Street and turn down Ch estnut Street. Roots walked back to appellant and handed to him the white and green paper he re ceived from the Honda driver. Acting on information from Honeycutt, two other police officers stopped the Honda after it had traveled about th ree blocks from the intersection where the transaction occurred. As soon as the officers stopped the Honda, the dr iver, the only occupant, reached down to the floorboard of the passenger side of the car. The o fficers recovered the only object on the floorboard: a black purse, which was found to contain a piece of cocaine weighing 0.05 gram. At trial, Officer Honeycutt id entified a photograph of Jamar Roots, the same individual that he observed assisting appellant in the street transactio n on November 19, 2001. Without objection, the Commonwealth intr oduced the photograph as ev idence. In order to es tablish that Roots was a juvenile at the ti me of the offense, the Co mmonwealth offered two cert ified juvenile conviction orders of Jamar Roots from the City of Portsmouth Juven ile and Domestic Relations District Court. The judge overruled appellant’s obj ection and admitted th e orders. The juvenile conviction orders reflected that Roots was seventeen years old on November 19, 2001, the date of the offenses at issue here. The documents al so showed that he was convicted of charges arisin g from the same November 19, 2001 conduct for which appellant was on trial. The tria l court stated that it was- 3 - “satisfied that these are the charge s, the same date. I’m satisfied th at this is the Jamar Roots as has been described here.” It received the two cert ified juvenile conviction orders into evidence. Based on the evidence before it, the trial court convicted appellant of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; distribution of a controll ed substance within 1000 feet of school property; and distribution of cocaine to a minor for his use of a minor as a “go-between.” It sentenced appellant to a total of fifteen year s in prison with five years suspen ded. The trial court dismissed the conspiracy to distribute cocaine charge. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convi ct him of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, of distributing cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, and of distributing cocaine to a minor. He argues th at the Commonwealth fa iled to prove that th e cocaine recovered from the driver was the sa me item the driver re ceived from appellant and Root s. He also argues that the evidence failed to establish that Jamar Roots was a minor. When the sufficiency of the evidence is ch allenged on appeal, we review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, gr anting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.” Higginbotham v. Commonwealth , 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). The evidence demonstrated that appellant gave Roots a rock of crack cocaine, which Roots delivered to the driver of the Honda. The officer’s testimony was sufficient to prove Roots received money from the driver and delive red the money to appellant. After the Honda had traveled only three blocks, the police stopped it and found cocaine within the driver’s reach. The evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reas onable doubt that the co caine recovered from the driver of the Honda was the same substanc e she received moments earlier from Roots in exchange for money.- 4 - To establish that Roots was a minor at the time of the offense, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence two certified convictio n orders for a juvenile named “Jamar Roots” from the City of Portsmouth Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Cour t. Although appellant objected on grounds of relevancy and hearsay, the trial court admitted the conviction orders as relevant to prove appellant dist ributed cocaine to a minor. This appeal does not contest this ruling, but, rather contends the evidence, as adm itted, was insufficient to prove the fact of Roots’ age or that the orders pertained to the same Roots who was seen by the officer. Thus, in challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, appellant argues on appeal only that the Commonwealth “failed to prove that the Jamar Roots who was observed by Honeycutt was the same Jamar Roots that was convicted as a minor at some other date in the Juvenile Court.” The record clearly established that the offi cer identified a photograph and testified that it depicted “Jamar Roots,” the person he saw r eceive cocaine from appellant. The conviction orders showed that Jamar Roots was seventeen year s old on the date of the offenses that are the subject of this appeal. The orders also showed that he was convicted of the same offenses based on the same events as those appellant faced at trial. We conclude that the evidence in the record before us supports the trial court’s judgment that appellant possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute, that he di stributed cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, and that he distributed co caine to a person under the age of eighteen. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions. 1
Affirmed.

1 We note that appellant’s attorney fails to ci te any authority or argument in support of his position in his opening brief. Rule 5A:20(e) requires that the opening brief of appellant must contain “[t]he principles of la w, the argument, and the author ities relating to each question presented.”