COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Huff, O’Brien and Fulton

TONY LAMONTE BROWN

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0598-23-1 PER CURIAM

MAY 14, 2024

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

Robert B. Rigney, Judge

(Harry Dennis Harmon, Jr., on brief), for appellant.

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Robert D. Bauer, Assistant 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

After a bench trial, the court convicted Tony Lamonte Brown (appellant) of attempted 

malicious wounding, using a firearm in the commission of a felony, and carrying a concealed 

weapon. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his identity as a shooter, 

and to prove that he acted with malice. He also argues that the evidence was consistent with 

self-defense. After examining the briefs and record, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument 

is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); 

Rule 5A:27(a).

BACKGROUND1

On the afternoon of April 1, 2022, appellant accompanied Shaquan Clayton and Jovan 

Elliott to the student recreation center at Old Dominion University (“ODU”). Appellant was not a 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).

1 On appeal, we recite the facts “in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the 

prevailing party in the trial court.” Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 231 (2022) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). In doing so, we “discard the 

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

student, so he bought a guest pass. To acquire the pass, appellant provided his identification, and 

submitted to a photograph, in which he was wearing a gray hoodie.

Later that evening, the men joined some friends at a club, “The Edge.” Shortly after 

1:00 a.m. on April 2, the group walked from the club to a 7-Eleven across the street. Footage from 

a store security camera captured images of appellant wearing a gray hoodie. The group returned to 

The Edge, where they encountered another man who they believed was urinating near their 

vehicles—a Honda and a Toyota. In response, they moved both cars to a parking lot between the 

7-Eleven and a restaurant, and four of appellant’s companions returned to The Edge to confront the 

man. Footage from a nearby security camera shows the man’s sister approach and briefly join in the 

argument before her fiancé, Marvin Jones, intervened. The two groups separated, and Jones 

returned to the club while appellant’s group returned to their vehicles.

Soon after the argument, Jones walked to his car in the club’s parking lot. As Jones stood 

near his vehicle, appellant and his companions began moving among the cars parked outside the 

restaurant across the street from the club. Just as Jones’s fiancée approached Jones’s car, Clayton 

opened fire. Jones ducked behind another vehicle but emerged and returned fire. During the 

exchange of gunfire, appellant moved away from Clayton and took cover behind an SUV parked a 

few spaces away from the group’s Honda and Toyota. As he took cover, appellant pocketed 

something that he had been holding in his hands.

Seconds later, the Honda pulled out of its parking spot and drove past appellant, Clayton, 

and one of their companions. At the same time, Jones re-emerged from cover and fired towards the 

group, and appellant fled back toward the restaurant. Appellant drew a pistol, stepped out from

evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the 

credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.” 

Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)).
- 3 -

behind the restaurant, and—together with Clayton and another person—fired shots towards Jones 

before appellant ran to the departing Toyota.

Officers located 26 shell casings at the scene of the shooting—ten nine-millimeter casings, 

ten .45 caliber casings, and six .40 caliber casings. Six rounds were fired from Jones’s location, and 

the rest were fired from the restaurant’s parking lot. Forensic analysis determined that four firearms

were used in the shooting, including two different .40 caliber weapons, and that each weapon fired 

multiple rounds.

ODU Police Detective Destini Williams spoke with appellant, who admitted that he was 

present at the time of the shooting and had a firearm at that time, but denied discharging it. 

Detective Williams showed him surveillance images from the nearby 7-Eleven, taken minutes 

before the shooting, and appellant identified himself as the man in a gray hoodie. After hearing that

the man in gray was a shooter, appellant instead identified himself as a different figure. Detective 

Williams identified this person as a shooter as well, and in response appellant again identified 

himself as the man in gray.

Approximately two weeks later, Norfolk Police Officer Arielle Wimbrough saw appellant

walking near his home with another man. Appellant adjusted his waistband, which led her to 

believe that he had a firearm. Appellant and the other man went into appellant’s home for about 20 

minutes, and then left on foot. At that point, the officer saw appellant’s companion walking with his 

hand in his pocket and adjusting his waistband. Officer Wimbrough called out to appellant. 

Appellant stopped, but his companion fled. Officer Wimbrough located a cell phone and a firearm 

hidden near the path of the man’s flight. Later, forensic analysis determined that the firearm—a .45 

caliber Glock—discharged ten rounds during the April 2 shooting.

At trial, Jones testified that he approached the group during the argument to get his fiancée

because he “was ready to go.” According to Jones, the gunfire “just happened” after he walked to 
- 4 -

his car and started it up to leave. Because his first instinct was to shoot back, he drew his firearm 

and fired three shots in response. During cross-examination, appellant’s attorney asked Jones if he 

had fired six shots. Jones denied firing six shots, although six casings were recovered from his 

location, and reiterated that he fired only three times. Jones could not recall the number of shots 

fired at him and could identify neither the shooters nor the men from the argument outside the club.

Appellant testified that he took no part in the shooting and he did not see the initial shots

because he was opening the door of the Honda. Appellant claimed that he and one of his 

companions left in the Honda soon after the initial shots were fired. Appellant stated that he 

misidentified himself to Detective Williams as the man in gray because he was scared. Finally, he 

denied any connection to the firearm discovered after Officer Wimbrough stopped him and his 

companion.

At the conclusion of the evidence, appellant moved to strike and argued that the 

Commonwealth had not directly tied him to any of the guns fired during the shooting. Appellant

conceded that he was present at the time of the shooting and possessed a firearm but claimed that he 

never fired his weapon. He also maintained that he misidentified himself as the figure in gray and

stated that he was a different figure that left the scene during the shooting. Finally, he contended 

that if the court did determine that he was the figure in gray, the evidence did not support an 

attempted malicious wounding conviction because the video showed him shooting into the air, 

rather than at Jones. The court denied appellant’s motion and convicted him of the charged

offenses.

ANALYSIS 

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is 

presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original) 
- 5 -

(quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “[T]he relevant question is whether 

‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. 

Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193 (2009)).

I. Identity

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his identity as the shooter 

wearing a gray hoodie. He contends that during his interview with Detective Williams, he 

mistakenly identified himself as the man in gray because he was scared, and relies on the fact that

Jones could not identify his assailants.

“At trial, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving the identity of the accused as the 

perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cuffee v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 353, 364 (2013) 

(quoting Blevins v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 412, 423 (2003)). On appeal, we review the trier 

of fact’s determination about the identity of the criminal actor in the context of “the totality of 

the circumstances.” See Brown v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 507, 523 (2002) (quoting 

Satcher v. Commonwealth, 244 Va. 220, 249 (1992)). As with any element of an offense, identity 

may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Crawley v. Commonwealth, 29 

Va. App. 372, 375 (1999).

“It is firmly established that ‘[c]ircumstantial evidence is competent and is entitled to as 

much weight as direct evidence provided that the circumstantial evidence is sufficiently 

convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.’” Kelley v. 

Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 617, 629 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Pijor v. 

Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017)). “Circumstantial evidence is not ‘viewed in isolation’ 

because the ‘combined force of many concurrent and related circumstances, each insufficient in 

itself, may lead a reasonable [fact finder]’ to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a 
- 6 -

defendant is guilty.” Rams v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 12, 27 (2019) (alteration in original) 

(quoting Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 479 (2005)). Here, the record contains 

ample evidence for the fact finder to determine that appellant was the shooter in the gray hoodie.

Appellant was photographed at ODU’s student recreation center on the afternoon of April 1, 

wearing a gray hoodie. Surveillance footage from the 7-Eleven store showed him in a gray hoodie 

minutes before the shooting. Appellant conceded that he possessed a firearm at the time of the 

shooting, and the figure in the gray hoodie fired at Jones during the shootout. Although the 

shooters’ faces are not visible in the videos of the shooting, a reasonable fact finder could have 

watched the videos, considered them along with the other evidence, and concluded that appellant 

was the shooter in the gray hoodie. See Meade v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 796, 806 (2022) 

(“[O]n appellate review, [we] view video evidence . . . for the limited purpose of determining 

whether any rational fact[]finder could have viewed it as the trial court did.”). Accordingly, the 

evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, supports the court’s finding.

II. Self-defense

Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to sustain his 

convictions because he acted in defense “of himself and another when he discharged [his] firearm.”

“Self-defense is an affirmative defense which the accused must prove by introducing 

sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt.” Hughes v. Commonwealth, 39 

Va. App. 448, 464 (2002) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 68, 71 (1993)). When 

asserting a claim of self-defense, a defendant concedes that his actions were intentional, but offers 

an explanation. See Jones v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 70, 86 (2019). “Whether an accused 

proves circumstances sufficient to create a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense is a 

question of fact.” Smith, 17 Va. App. at 71.
- 7 -

Appellant presented no evidence to support his alternative theory that, if he was in fact the 

shooter, he acted in self-defense. Instead, appellant relied on the inconsistency between Jones’s 

testimony that he fired three shots and the six casings recovered from his location. On appeal, 

appellant contends that this evidence, alone, suggested that Jones was the aggressor and that 

“Clayton returned fire in self-defense.”

The mere inconsistency between the physical evidence and Jones’s testimony does not 

establish a reasonable doubt about appellant’s guilt, or even that Jones was the aggressor. Hughes, 

39 Va. App. at 464 (quoting Smith, 17 Va. App. at 68). The forensic evidence, or any other 

evidence, did not establish which of the casings recovered at the scene were fired first, or in what 

order. To the extent that Jones’s testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in the record, a 

witness’s credibility “is within the exclusive province of the [fact finder].” Dalton v. 

Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 512, 525 (2015) (quoting Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 300, 

304 (1993)). The fact finder is “free to believe or disbelieve, in part or in whole, the testimony of 

any witness,” and appellant does not argue that Jones was inherently incredible as a matter of law. 

Bazemore v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 203, 213 (2004) (en banc); see also Hammer v. 

Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 239 (2022) (“An appellate court ‘must accept the trial court’s 

determination of the credibility of witness testimony unless, as a matter of law, the testimony is 

inherently incredible.’” (cleaned up) (quoting Lambert v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 740, 759

(2019))).

Further, on brief, appellant appears to argue that the inconsistency in Jones’s testimony 

supports a theory that Clayton returned fire in response to Jones’s shots. That argument is irrelevant 

to appellant’s claim of self-defense. Even assuming, arguendo, that Clayton returned fire in 

self-defense, that does not automatically establish that appellant acted in self-defense.
- 8 -

Thus, the court did not err by finding that appellant failed to carry his burden to prove 

self-defense.

III. Malice

Finally, appellant contends that because the evidence established, at most, that he “fired a 

single round directly upward into the air and not at any individual,” the Commonwealth failed to 

prove the necessary element of malice. Appellant does not challenge the other elements of 

attempted malicious wounding. Accordingly, we limit our review to the question of whether the 

record supports the court’s determination that appellant acted with malice.

“The presence of malice ‘is a question of fact to be determined by [the trier of fact].’” 

Fletcher v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 493, 507 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Long v. 

Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 198 (1989)). “Malice inheres in the ‘doing of a wrongful act 

intentionally, or without just cause or excuse, or as a result of ill will.’” Tizon v. Commonwealth, 60 

Va. App. 1, 11 (2012) (quoting Dawkins v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 55, 61 (1947)). It is 

“evidenced either when the accused acted with a sedate, deliberate mind, and formed design, or 

committed any purposeful and cruel act without any or without great provocation.” Fletcher, 72 

Va. App. at 507 (quoting Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 836, 841 (1992)).

“[M]alice may be either express or implied by conduct.” Watson-Scott v. Commonwealth, 

298 Va. 251, 256 (2019) (quoting Essex v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 273, 280 (1984)). Further, 

malice “may be proved by circumstantial evidence” and “inferred ‘from the deliberate use of a 

deadly weapon.’” Palmer v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 225, 237 (2019) (first quoting Canipe v. 

Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 629, 642 (1997); and then quoting Doss v. Commonwealth, 23 

Va. App. 679, 686 (1996)).

Here, the video evidence showed several different figures engage in a shootout with Jones 

outside The Edge. The first shots were fired at Jones from across the street by Clayton, causing
- 9 -

Jones to take cover behind a vehicle parked outside the busy club. The videos also show appellant

draw a firearm and discharge it in Jones’s direction before fleeing with the others.

Whether malice exists is a question of fact. Robertson v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 814, 

823 (2000). Credible evidence in the record supports the court’s finding of malice. Because

appellant used a firearm—a deadly weapon—the court was entitled to infer that appellant possessed 

the requisite malice necessary to be convicted of attempted malicious wounding. Tizon, 60 

Va. App. at 11. Further, the physical evidence reflects that each of the four firearms involved fired 

multiple rounds during the altercation. Shooting a firearm multiple times “in the middle of a

populous city is the very definition of an action flowing from a ‘wicked and corrupt motive, done 

with an evil mind and purpose and wrongful intention.’” Watson-Scott, 298 Va. at 258 (quoting 

Martin v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 1009, 1015 (1946)). Thus, the court did not err by denying 

appellant’s motion to strike and finding the evidence sufficient to convict him of attempted 

malicious wounding.2

CONCLUSION

The court did not err when it determined that the evidence was sufficient to prove 

appellant’s identity as a shooter and that he acted with malice. Additionally, appellant’s claim of 

self-defense is not supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions.

Affirmed.

2 Considering our ruling on the issue of malice, we need not address appellant’s challenge 

to the sufficiency of the evidence for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.