COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges AtLee, Causey and Friedman 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

SHAKIR HOLLEY

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY

v. Record No. 0178-22-1 JUDGE DORIS HENDERSON CAUSEY

JUNE 6, 2023

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

Michelle J. Atkins, Judge

Trevor Jared Robinson for appellant.

Leanna C. Minix, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Shakir Holley was convicted in a jury trial of possession of a firearm by a convicted 

violent felon. On appeal, Holley argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike 

because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. For the following reasons, we 

disagree and affirm the conviction.

BACKGROUND1

In the early morning of one day in July 2020, a City of Norfolk police officer responded 

to a call regarding a parking violation. When the officer arrived on the scene, he found a vehicle 

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

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)). Therefore, we “discard the 

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)).

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

partially blocking a road. The car’s engine was running, and the headlights were on. The officer

approached the vehicle and found Holley asleep in the driver’s seat with a loaded handgun in his 

lap. Holley was the only person in the car, and there were no other individuals in the immediate 

area. 

The officer returned to his vehicle and requested support from other police units. Holley 

awoke as the officers approached the vehicle; he complied with their requests and was detained 

for investigation after he exited the vehicle. Holley initially did not respond when asked if the 

handgun was his, but eventually told the officers that he had found it “out here,” indicating the 

immediate area. 

After learning Holley’s identity, the police officer determined that Holley had two 

previous felony convictions and arrested him for possessing the firearm. The encounter was 

recorded on the officer’s body camera, and a portion of the video was played at trial. 

The Virginia Department of Forensic Science (“Department”) examined the firearm, a 

nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol. The Commonwealth introduced a “Certificate of 

Analysis” prepared by the Department into evidence. The certificate of analysis contained the 

Department’s finding that the firearm was “found to be in mechanical operating condition and 

test fired using the . . . magazine” that was with it.2 The firearm was not examined for 

fingerprints or DNA. The Commonwealth showed the firearm to the jury and introduced a photo 

of it into evidence. The Commonwealth also introduced into evidence Holley’s previous 

convictions for attempted robbery and possession of a firearm by a non-violent felon.

Holley appeared pro se at trial, with standby counsel. At the conclusion of the 

Commonwealth’s case, Holley moved to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, arguing, in 

2

“‘Firearm’ means any handgun, shotgun, or rifle that will or is designed to or may 

readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a 

combustible material.” Code § 18.2-308.2:2.
- 3 -

relevant part, that the jury should find him not guilty “because there is simply no evidence.” The 

trial court denied the motion. Holley chose not to present any evidence and rested his case. 

After closing arguments and deliberations, the jury convicted Holley of possession of a firearm 

by a convicted violent felon. This appeal follows. 

ANALYSIS

Holley asserts that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to establish the 

possession component of Code § 18.2-308.2.3 Holley argues that “he merely occupied a vehicle 

in which a firearm was located, and that no testimony or evidence was presented with regard to 

the ownership of said vehicle.” Holley also argues that he could not have knowledge of the 

presence and character of the firearm, nor could it have been subject to his dominion or control, 

because he was “unconscious” 4 when the officer found him. 

“On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘the judgment of the trial court is 

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

support it.’” Ingram v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 59, 76 (2021) (quoting Smith v. 

Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). The Court “does not ‘ask itself whether it believes 

that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Commonwealth v. 

Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193 (2009)). 

Instead, we ask “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 

3 The Commonwealth contends that Holley has not preserved his claim for appeal 

because he did not argue at trial that there was no evidence that he possessed the firearm. 

However, at trial, Holley cited the lack of fingerprints and DNA evidence and argued the jury 

would not find him guilty “because there is simply no evidence.” We assume without deciding 

that Holley preserved his sufficiency claim. 

4 At trial, Holley said he had been “sleeping.” The officer also referred to Holley 

“sleeping” in the vehicle. 
- 4 -

(2010)). “[A] jury’s verdict should not be disturbed on appeal unless the verdict was plainly 

wrong or without evidence to support it.” Stevens v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 481, 487 (2006). 

“If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted to 

substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the 

finder of fact at the trial.’” Eberhardt v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 23, 31 (2021) (quoting 

Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).

It is “unlawful for . . . any person who has been convicted of a felony . . . to knowingly 

and intentionally possess or transport any firearm or ammunition for a firearm.” Code 

§ 18.2-308.2. To prove possession, whether actual or constructive, the Commonwealth must 

establish that “the defendant intentionally and consciously possessed the [firearm] with 

knowledge of its nature and character.” Morris v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 459, 465-66 

(2008). “[P]roof of ‘actual’ possession of a firearm . . . may be established by circumstantial 

evidence, direct evidence, or both.” Byers v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 146, 150 (1996)

(citing Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215, 216-19 (1994)).

Actual possession is defined as the “physical occupancy or control over property.” 

Brown v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 507, 521 (2002) (quoting Actual Possession, Black’s Law 

Dictionary (7th ed. 1999)). “Physical possession giving the defendant ‘immediate and exclusive 

control’ is sufficient” to establish actual possession. Hunley v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 556, 

562 (1999) (quoting Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732, 741 (1970)). “A suspect’s actual, 

physical possession of [a firearm] permits the inference that he or she knowingly possessed [it]

aware of [its] illegal nature and character.” Morris, 51 Va. App. at 466.

The Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Holley had actual possession of the firearm. When the officer approached Holley’s vehicle, 

the officer found Holley asleep with the firearm in his lap. The location of the firearm in 
- 5 -

Holley’s lap put the firearm in Holley’s immediate and exclusive control. Thus, we hold that this 

evidence sufficiently established that Holley had actual possession of the firearm. Holley’s 

actual possession of the firearm also permitted the inference that he was aware of the firearm’s 

illegal nature and character. In addition, Holley did not express any surprise about the officers 

discovering the handgun and told the officer that he had found the firearm in the immediate area. 

Thus, we hold that the evidence sufficiently established that Holley was aware of the presence 

and character of the firearm. 

CONCLUSION

For these reasons we hold that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Holley 

actually possessed the firearm with knowledge of its nature and character. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.