COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and O’Brien 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

JAMES COREY BOGGS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 1602-15-1 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS 

 JANUARY 24, 2017 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 

William R. Savage, Judge 

William Joshua Holder, Assistant Public Defender (A. Robinson 

Winn, Deputy Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. 

J. Christian Obenshain, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. 

Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 James Corey Boggs (“Boggs”) appeals his May 28, 2015 conviction of credit card theft, 

in violation of Code § 18.2-192, from the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake (the “circuit 

court”). Boggs’s only assignment of error is that the circuit court erred in finding the evidence 

was sufficient to establish that Boggs was the person who took the credit card at issue. 

 “When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we consider all the evidence, and 

any reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom, in the light most favorable to the party that 

prevailed at trial, which is the Commonwealth in this case.” Byers v. Commonwealth, 37 

Va. App. 174, 179, 554 S.E.2d 714, 716 (2001). “When reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support a conviction, the Court will affirm the judgment unless the judgment is 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148, 

 *

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

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008). “[T]he relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 

Va. 672, 676, 701 S.E.2d 61, 63 (2010). 

Boggs and his coworker, Harris, were contracted to remove a washer and dryer from an 

apartment. On the same day that Boggs and Harris were in the apartment, Glover realized there 

was an unauthorized use on her credit card merely three to five hours after the men had been in 

the apartment. Glover left her credit card on the stair bannister for her sister to use, if needed. 

At a joint trial of Boggs and his co-defendant, Lisa Banks, Boggs was convicted of credit card 

theft pursuant to Code § 18.2-192(1)(a), which states that 

[a] person is guilty of credit card or credit card number theft when 

[h]e takes, obtains or withholds a credit card or credit card number 

from the person, possession, custody or control of another without 

the cardholder’s consent or who, with knowledge that it has been 

so taken, obtained or withheld, receives the credit card or credit 

card number with intent to use it or sell it, or to transfer it to a 

person other than the issuer or the cardholder. 

 On appeal, Boggs argues that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that he was the 

person who took the card because multiple people had access to the apartment, no testimony was 

given about exactly when the credit card was last seen, and Harris never saw a credit card while 

he was in the apartment. Further, Boggs argues that mere opportunity is insufficient to prove 

guilt. Because there was no direct evidence to prove Boggs took the credit card, he argues that 

he cannot be found to have actually taken it. 

The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that 

[t]here is no distinction in the law between the weight or 

value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. The 

finder of fact is entitled to consider all the evidence, without 

distinction, in reaching its determination. Circumstantial evidence 

is not viewed in isolation. While no single piece of evidence may 

be sufficient, the combined force of many concurrent and related 
- 3 - 

circumstances, each insufficient in itself, may lead a reasonable 

mind irresistibly to a conclusion. 

Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 479, 619 S.E.2d 16, 32-33 (2005). 

In this case, although it is true that there was no direct evidence establishing that Boggs 

took the credit card, there are other pieces of evidence that, when viewed together, could lead a 

rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Boggs was the person who took 

the credit card. And while opportunity alone is not adequate to prove an element of a crime, 

“when reinforced by other incriminating circumstances, [it] may be sufficient to establish 

criminal agency beyond a reasonable doubt.” Christian v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1078, 1082, 

277 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1981). This case does not rest on opportunity alone. It is supported by 

other incriminating circumstances. 

First, Glover’s credit card was used on the same day it was taken from the apartment, 

merely three to five hours after Boggs was in the apartment. The evidence, viewed in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth, established that Harris and Boggs were the only people in 

the apartment that day and that they used a key to enter and locked the door when they left. 

Further, it was undisputed at trial that Boggs’s co-defendant used Glover’s credit card at Food 

Lion, and Harris positively identified the co-defendant as Boggs’s girlfriend. At the very least, 

Harris identified Boggs’s co-defendant as having picked up Boggs from work in the past, 

establishing a relationship between them. Although Harris’s identification of the co-defendant 

was not made with absolute certainty, the circuit court could nonetheless consider such 

testimony. See Harris v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 882, 889, 147 S.E.2d 88, 93 (1966) (noting 

that a fact-finder may consider testimony even if it does not “exclude[e] all doubt”). Boggs was 

the only link between the apartment where the credit card was last seen and the co-defendant 

who indisputably used the credit card. Thus, based on the circumstantial evidence in the case, 

Boggs’s opportunity to take the credit card was “reinforced by other incriminating 
- 4 - 

circumstances” such that it was “sufficient to establish criminal agency beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Christian, 221 Va. at 1082, 277 S.E.2d at 208. 

Boggs relies on Cheatham v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 286, 208 S.E.2d 760 (1974), 

Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 225 S.E.2d 411 (1976), and Sandoval v. 

Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 455 S.E.2d 730 (1995), to support his contention that even if 

there was sufficient evidence to prove that he took or possessed the stolen credit card, mere proof 

of possession is not sufficient to support a conviction of credit card theft. However, these cases 

are inapposite. In Cheatham, the evidence of credit card theft was insufficient as a matter of law 

because the only evidence against him was mere possession of a stolen credit card that he 

allegedly intended to return to the owner. 215 Va. at 290, 208 S.E.2d at 763. In Wilder, the 

defendant was only charged with possession of stolen credit cards, which was not a criminal 

offense. 217 Va. at 148, 225 S.E.2d at 413-14. In Sandoval, the evidence was sufficient to 

support the conviction of credit card theft because Sandoval was found not only in possession of 

the stolen credit card, but also an ATM card, a hat, and a knife that were stolen at “the same time 

and place” as the credit card. 20 Va. App. at 137, 455 S.E.2d at 731. 

Unlike Cheatham, Wilder, and Sandoval, this case does not rely on proof of Boggs’s 

possession of the credit card at all. To the contrary, it was Boggs’s co-defendant who was 

caught in possession of the credit card and used it at Food Lion. The evidence established a 

relationship between Boggs and the co-defendant, as well as Boggs’s opportunity to take the 

credit card from the apartment. Together, those circumstances amounted to more than mere 

possession of the stolen credit card, and there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit 

court’s finding that Boggs took the credit card. 
- 5 - 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s decision and hold that it did not 

err in determining that Boggs was the person who took Glover’s credit card from the apartment. 

Affirmed.