COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

TIMOTHY A. COBB, S/K/A 

 TIMOTHY ALLEN COBB 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 2681-96-1 JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 JANUARY 27, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 

Russell I. Townsend, Jr., Judge 

 Jennifer T. Stanton (J. T. Stanton, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Daniel J. Munroe, Assistant Attorney General 

(Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Timothy A. Cobb (appellant), sometimes known as Timothy 

Allen Cobb, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the 

City of Chesapeake (trial court) that approved a jury verdict 

convicting him for breaking and entering into a business place in 

the daytime with intent to commit larceny, in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-91. The sole issue presented is whether the evidence is 

sufficient to support appellant's conviction. 

 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom, see Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 

443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987), we find that on the morning of 

September 26, 1995, Larry Miller, the parts and warehouse manager 

at Virginia Air Distributors, discovered that someone had broken 

into the company warehouse building, which consisted of the 
- 2 - 

warehouse and two offices. In the office area, Miller "noticed 

[that] change was thrown all over the place" and that the "petty 

cash box had been broken into." Missing from the office area 

were (1) money from the cash box and (2) a set of high-low 

pressure gauges, which had been hanging behind the parts counter 

in the office. A hole big enough for a person to crawl through 

had been cut into the sheet metal wall of the warehouse. In the 

office of the operations manager, Wayne Smith, the police found a 

pair of yellow-handled tin snips bearing the name "T. Cobb." The 

tin snips were the type used to cut sheet and various light 

metals. The snips did not belong to Virginia Air Distributors, 

and Smith had not left them there. Miller did not know appellant 

and had not given him permission to be on the premises. 

 Smith's office is normally locked at night; however, the 

record fails to establish that it had been locked on the break-in 

day. On the day prior to the break-in, Miller and Smith had 

closed the business at the regular time of 5:30 p.m. When Miller 

arrived the next morning, Smith was already present on the 

premises and "in a panic" due to the break-in. 

 Several weeks after the break-in, Miller identified the 

missing high-low gauge set at the Easy Pawn Shop. A pawn shop 

employee, Harris Perry, testified that appellant had pawned that 

gauge set on October 24, 1995. Miller testified that the set had 

been hanging at eye level behind the counter at the warehouse 

every day for two years. Miller had used the gauge set about a 
- 3 - 

week prior to the burglary and was absolutely certain that the 

pawned gauge set was the one stolen from Virginia Air 

Distributors. 

 Appellant denied committing the burglary, claiming that he 

had obtained the gauge set from his former employer, but the 

former employer failed specifically to corroborate appellant's 

claim. Appellant further claimed that the tin snips had been 

stolen from him, but he did not report the alleged theft until he 

was questioned about the subject burglary. Appellant admitted 

that he previously had been convicted of five felonies. 

 Relying upon Williams v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 764, 71 

S.E.2d 73 (1952), appellant contends that evidence of his 

possession of stolen property, coupled with evidence of his own 

property having been stolen, is insufficient to convict him of 

burglary. In Williams, however, no evidence of a break-in was 

shown. Therefore, Williams is inapposite and is clearly 

distinguishable from the case before us. In Hawley v. 

Commonwealth, 206 Va. 479, 485, 144 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1965), the 

Supreme Court said: 

 Williams v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 764, 

71 S.E.2d 73 (1952), relied upon by the 

defendant, is not authority to the contrary. 

 In that case, we held that bare evidence of 

the possession of stolen goods was not 

sufficient to support a conviction of 

storebreaking, where there was no evidence of 

breaking by force. Here, there was direct 

proof of breaking by force. 

 The Commonwealth makes a prima facie case of breaking and 
- 4 - 

entering against an accused when it proves (1) "a breaking and 

entering, and a theft of goods," (2) "that both offenses were 

committed at the same time, by the same person, as a part of the 

same criminal enterprise," and (3) "that the stolen goods [were] 

found soon thereafter in the possession of the accused." Schaum 

v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 498, 501, 211 S.E.2d 73, 76 (1975). We 

find that the evidence contained in this record meets those 

requirements. 

 For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.