COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felt on, Judges Frank and Kelsey Argued at Salem, Virginia

MONSERRATE SEIS MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1619-06-3 CHIEF JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY James V. Lane, Judge W. Andrew Harding (Eldridge, E lledge & Harding PLC, on brief), for appellant. Richard B. Smith, Special Assi stant Attorney Ge neral (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Monserrate Seis (appellant) was convicted follow ing a jury trial of bur glary in violation of Code § 18.2-91, grand larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-95, two charges of conspiracy to commit burglary in violation of Code § 18.2-22, a nd two charges of conspi racy to commit grand larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-22. Appellant contends that the trial court er red in joining together multiple offenses for a single trial, arguing that the joined offenses were not “connected,” based on the same act or transaction, part of a “common scheme,” or conducted in a distinctive manner. He also co ntends the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after the Commonwealth referred to his involvement in offenses other than those on trial. He additionally contends that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence connecting appellant to the car witnesses identified as being used in the commissi on of the offenses. Finally, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of burglary, conspiracy to commit

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - burglary, and conspiracy to co mmit grand larceny. For the following reasons, we affirm appellant’s convictions.
I. BACKGROUND Around 2:30 p.m. on March 29, 2005, Jeremy Paz, a sixteen-year-old resident of Grassy Creek Trailer Park (Grassy Creek), was visiti ng a friend, Jiro Mendez, who also resided in Grassy Creek. Paz saw appellant and another man removing items from Javier Miramontes’ home and placing the items into a white Oldsmobile. 1 Paz and Mendez hastened to the office of the Grassy Creek property manager, Lisa Bryant, and told her what they had observed. Bryant called 911, explained what Paz and Mendez told her they sa w at Miramontes’ house, and provided the dispatcher with a de scription and license plate number of the car Paz had given her. Deputy Larry Michael of the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Department responded to Bryant’s call. Using the information he receiv ed from Bryant, Deputy Michael issued a “be on the lookout” for a white Oldsmobile bearing the li cense plate number Bryant provided to him. Deputy Michael learned from the Department of Motor Vehicles (D MV) that the car was registered to Mirabelle Bramble, the mother of appellant’s girlfriend, Elizabeth Olivencia, and with whom appellant and Olivencia resided. Shortly before appellant and a companion were seen taking items from Miramontes’ home, they knocked on the front door of Gra ssy Creek resident Young Menard. Menard answered the door and saw a white car in her driv eway. Appellant asked to speak with someone whom Menard did not know. A second man “was st anding there looking at the other side [of the house away from the door].” When informed that th e person did not live th ere, appellant and his companion left. Emilia Silva, another resident of Grassy Creek, experienced a similar encounter

1 Paz recognized appellant as a person with whom he had previously played basketball at a local park.- 3 - the same day. 2 Although Silva was unable to identif y the individuals who knocked on her door, she confirmed that two men stood outside her d oor and that one man asked to speak with someone she did not know. The following day at a local park Paz saw appe llant, as well as the white Oldsmobile he observed the previous day at Miramontes’ and Me nard’s residences. Sh eriff’s deputies were notified of appellant’s presence at the park and ar rived within a few minutes . Appellant left the park on foot immediately after the deputies arrived. A grand jury returned forty-six indict ments against appellant, charging multiple burglaries, larcenies, and attempts to commit, and conspiracies to commit, each of those crimes. 3 The trial court joined all the charges against appellant and Raul Guzman, arising out of the March 29, 2005 events at Grassy Creek for trial. 4 In October 2005, a jury convicted appellant of burglary, grand larceny, two charges of conspiracy to commit burglary, and two charges of conspiracy to commit grand larceny. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS A. Joinder of Offenses Appellant contends the trial c ourt abused its discretion in jo ining the offenses arising out of the events at Grassy Creek on March 29, 2005 for trial. He contends joinder was inappropriate because “[a]ny residential burglary will have similarities,” and the offenses at Grassy Creek were neither “connected,” nor c onstituted part of a “common scheme” as required

2 Silva and Miramontes ar e next-door neighbors.

3 The grand jury also retu rned thirty-three indictments against Raul Guzman in connection with the same offenses.

4 The indictments against Guzman arising out of the Grassy Creek incidents on March 29, 2005, were dismissed when witnesses at trial were unable to identify him as a perpetrator of those offenses.- 4 - by Rule 3A:6. The Commonwealth contends th at appellant is barred by Rule 5A:18 from arguing on appeal that the offe nses were improperly joined. 5 Under Rule 3A:10(c), “[t]he trial court may, in its discretion, try th e [accused] for more than one offense at the same time without his consent only if justice doe s not require separate trials and the offenses meet the requirements of Rule 3A:6(b).” Spence v. Commonwealth , 12 Va. App. 1040, 1042, 407 S.E.2d 916, 917 (1991). “Under Rule 3A:6(b), two or more offenses may be joined in a single indictment ‘if the offenses are based on the same act or transaction, or on two or more acts or transactions that are conn ected or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.’” Scott v. Commonwealth , ___ Va. ___, ___, ___S.E.2d ___, ___ (Nov. 2, 2007) (quoting Rule 3A:6(b)). “To meet the ‘c onnected’ test, the crimes should be ‘so intimately connected and blended with the main facts adduced in eviden ce, that they cannot be departed from with propriety.’” Spence , 12 Va. App. at 1044, 407 S.E.2d at 918 (quoting Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth , 211 Va. 269, 273, 176 S.E.2d 802, 806 (1970)). “A reviewing court must look to whether the transactions were ‘closely conne cted in time, place, and means of commission, all of which supports the use of a single trial.’” Yellardy v. Commonwealth , 38 Va. App. 19, 24, 561 S.E.2d 739, 742 (2002) (quoting Satcher v. Commonwealth , 244 Va. 220, 229, 421 S.E.2d 821, 827 (1992)). “The term ‘common scheme’ describes crim es that share features idiosyncratic in character, which permit an inference that each individual offense was committed by the same person or persons as part of a pa ttern of criminal activity involving certain identified crimes.”
Scott , ___ Va. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. The determ ination of ‘“[w]hether different offenses should be tried separately is a matter that rests within the sound discretio n of a trial court,’”

5 We conclude from the record that appellant clearly made his object ion to joinder of the Grassy Creek indictments known to the trial co urt and that he preserved the issue for our consideration on appeal.- 5 - Yellardy , 38 Va. App. at 24, 561 S.E.2d at 742 (quoting Traish v. Commonwealth , 36 Va. App. 114, 129, 549 S.E.2d 5, 12 (2001)), and its ruling will not be reversed absent a showing that it abused its discretion, Ferrell v. Commonwealth , 11 Va. App. 380, 386, 399 S.E.2d 614, 617 (1990). Here, the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the events at Grassy Creek were “connected” in time, place, and manner, and were sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit an inference that the same person was involved in a “common scheme” of criminal activity involving burglaries, larcenies, a nd conspiracies to commit each of those offenses. Within a short time span, appellant and a companion a pproached three residences located in close proximity to each other, employing the same modus operandi at each to determine whether they were occupied. In each instance, appellant knoc ked on the door of a residence and, if anyone answered, appellant asked to speak with a pers on who did not live there. Appellant and his companion unlawfully entered Miramontes’ reside nce once they determined no one was at home, removed his property from inside, and placed it in the same white Oldsmobile Paz had observed at Menard’s residence less than one hour earlier. A lthough no witness was able to identify the person accompanying appellant, Menard and Silva te stified that at least two people were present at their residences, and Paz testified that two pe ople were present at Miramontes’ residence. From this record, we conclude that the trial co urt did not err in determining that the offenses arising out of the March 29 Grassy Creek incidents were “connect ed” and constituted part of a “common scheme” of criminal activity. See also Cook v. Commonwealth , 7 Va. App. 225, 229, 372 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1988) (joinder appr opriate for separate offens es similar in time, scope, geography, modus operandi , and involving the same people). Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining the offenses for trial.- 6 - B. Mistrial Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial, arguing that the Commonwealth made multiple references during the trial to his involvement in unrelated crimes. On appeal, a trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial on the grounds that the jury heard improper evidence will not be reversed unless “there exists a manifest proba bility as a matter of law that the improper evidence prejudiced the accused,” Mills v. Commonwealth , 24 Va. App. 415, 420, 482 S.E.2d 860, 862 (1997), which happens only when the evidence is “so impressive that it probably remained on the minds of the jury and influenced their verdict,” Coffey v. Commonwealth , 188 Va. 629, 636, 51 S.E.2d 215, 218 (1949). Moreover, where a trial court gives cautionary instructions rega rding such evidence, “[u]nless th e record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an e xplicit cautionary instruction promptly given.” LeVasseur v. Commonwealth , 225 Va. 564, 589, 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983). 1. Investigator Deeds’ Testimony Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after Investigator Deeds testified as follows: I conducted [] two interviews [with appellant]. On the first interview I had informed [appellant] that I wanted to talk to him about several break-ins at Grassy Creek. He told me that he did not know where Grassy Creek was. I proceeded by telling him that there has been some witnesses that have seen him, Raul Guzman and a heavyset individual at Gra ssy Creek and that he and Raul Guzman were picked out of a photo a rray. And he said that he still didn’t know what I was talking a bout. I explained that a tag number had also been obtained by some witnesses and that it was a white in color Oldsmobile. And he looked at me and said that he doesn’t know why f**** people see him. Following that testimony, appellant immediatel y moved for a mistrial, arguing Deeds’ testimony referred to offenses other than those for which he was on trial. The trial court denied- 7 - appellant’s motion and asked Deeds to limit her testimony to the Grassy Creek offenses. The prosecutor then asked Deeds whether appellan t’s statement was made when he was being questioned about Grassy Creek. When Deeds answer ed, “[i]t was in the same interview [but] [i]t was about another location[,]” appellant again m oved for mistrial. The trial court deferred its ruling until the conclusion of Deeds’ testimony. It then denied appellant’s motion stating, “[i]t wasn’t extremely blatant and I don’t feel it merits a mistrial.” The trial co urt instructed the jury to disregard and not to consider any comments Deeds may have made regarding incidents other than those for which appellant was being tried. We find no error in the tr ial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for mistrial. 2. Deputy Michael’s Testimony Appellant also asserts that the trial court er red in failing to grant his motion for mistrial when the Commonwealth impermissibly informed the jury that there was more than one breaking and entering. During hi s redirect examination, the prosecutor asked Deputy Michael, “what steps did the sheriff’s department take to make the public aware of these breaking and enterings?” Appellant objected to the question arguing that it was not relevant and called for a hearsay response. After a brief bench conference out of the hear ing of the jury, the trial court ruled that the prosecutor’s question was out of order as it exceeded the scope of cross-examination. Immediately following the benc h conference, and out of the hearing of the jury, appellant’s counsel told th e prosecutor that he used the pl ural “breaking and enterings” in his previous question. The Comm onwealth then stated to the trial court and in the jury’s presence, “[y]our Honor, it’s been brought to my attention that I menti oned burglaries in the plural and obviously there’s only one actual B&E. I just wanted to clarify that.” The court responded, “[f]or the record there is only one br eaking and entering offens e charge.” Appellant did not contemporaneously object or seek a mist rial following these statements. We find no- 8 - error on the part of the trial court for failing to sua sponte grant a mistrial under these circumstances. 3. Commonwealth’s Closing Arguments Appellant also argues that the trial court erre d in denying his motion for mistrial when the prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury stated, [w]hat does [appellant] say when I nvestigator Deeds says why are people picking you out of a lineup with respect to Grassy Creek, you’ve got Ms. Menard and Jeremy Paz essentially picking you out, and what does he say? I don’t know why people see me. I never had anything to do with th at. I don’t know where Grassy Creek is. I never had a Play Station. 6 From our review of the prosecutor’s closi ng argument, we find not hing in his comments to suggest appellant’s involvement in other offenses. Accordingly, we find no error on the part of the trial court in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial based on th e prosecutor’s closing argument. We conclude from the record that there wa s no “manifest probability” that any of the instances on which appellant sough t mistrial, individually or colle ctively, prejudiced the accused, or that the jury failed to follow the trial court’ s cautionary instructions that it disregard any reference to the existence of offenses other than those being tried. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying each of appellant’s moti ons for mistrial, and, therefore, we affirm the trial court’s rulings. C. Hearsay Appellant argues that the trial court erre d in admitting Deputy Michael’s testimony concerning the registration of the white Oldsmob ile that Paz and his companion observed at the

6 Among the items taken from Miramontes’ resi dence were a green card, social security card, Virginia identification card, jewelry, cas h, DVDs, CDs, and a PlayStation. Appellant “pawned” a PlayStation for cash shortly after he was seen rem oving property from Miramontes’ residence.- 9 - Menard and Miramontes residences on March 29. He contends that Deputy Michael’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay as the DMV records were obtained using second-hand information Bryant received from Paz and Mendez. 7 ‘“Hearsay evidence is testimony . . . of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matte rs asserted therein, and thus resting [] its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.’” Stevenson v. Commonwealth , 218 Va. 462, 465, 237 S.E.2d 779, 781 (1977) (quoting McCormick on Evidence § 246, at 54 (2d ed. 1972)). The trial court determined that Deputy Michael’ s testimony concerning the actions he took based on information he received from Bryant was not h earsay, as it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain his conduct after he received the report of a possible burglary involving a white car. See Hamm v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 150, 156, 428 S.E.2d 517, 521 (1993) (statement offered to explain decl arant’s conduct or that of person to whom statement was made, not objectionable hearsay). Because other competent evidence connected ap pellant to the white Oldsmobile Paz saw at Miramontes’ house, we need not address whet her the trial court erre d in ruling that Deputy Michael’s testimony regardi ng the registration of th e car was not hearsay. See Schindel v. Commonwealth , 219 Va. 814, 817, 252 S.E.2d 302, 304 (1979) (admission of hearsay testimony harmless error when content of extrajudicial statement established by other competent evidence). Olivencia, the mother of appell ant’s child, testified that the wh ite car belonged to her mother, Mirabelle Bramble, and that appellant had ready access to the keys because she, appellant, and their child were living with Bramble at the time of the Grassy Creek offenses. Additionally, Paz identified appellant as the man he saw removi ng items from Miramontes’ home and placing them

7 Deputy Michael testified that his inquiry to DMV revealed that the license plate number he received from Bryant was registered to a white Oldsmobile owned by Mirabelle Bramble.- 10 - into the white Oldsmobile. He also identified the same white Oldsmobile the next day at a local park. Relying on this “other competent evidence ,” any error in the trial court’s admitting Deputy Michael’s testimony that the white Oldsmobile was registered to Bramble was, at best, harmless

error. Id. D. Sufficiency of the Evidence Appellant next argues that the Commonwealth’s evidence failed to prove the “breaking” element necessary to sustain his conviction of burglary of Miramontes’ residence under Code § 18.2-91. He also argues that because the Commonwealth failed to prove he intended to commit burglary or larceny of Mi ramontes’ or Menard’s propert y, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of conspiracy to commit burglary and conspiracy to commit grand larceny. “Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged after convict ion, it is our duty to consider it in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and give it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.” Higginbotham v. Commonwealth , 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). ‘“When a case, civil or criminal, is tried by a jury . . . the judgment of the trial court shall not be set aside unless it appears fr om the evidence that such judgment is plainly wrong or without eviden ce to support it.’” Charity v. Commonwealth , 49 Va. App. 581, 585, 643 S.E.2d 503, 505 (2007) (quoting Code § 8.01- 680). “[T]he relevant question is whether . . . any rational trier of fact could have found the essen tial elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Kelly v. Commonwealth , 41 Va. App. 250, 257, 584 S.E.2d 444, 447 (2003) ( en banc ) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). 1. Burglary Appellant argues that the evidence failed to establish that he broke into Miramontes’ residence. He asserts that the Commonwealth ’s evidence did not dispel the reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the last person who left Miramont es’ home before the theft on- 11 - March 29 left the door open. Appellant fails, howe ver, to exclude the re asonable inference that he applied some force, however slight, to gain entry into Miramontes’ residence, a reasonable inference that the properly instructed jury f ound in order to return its guilty verdict on the burglary charge. 8 “To sustain a conviction for statutory bur glary under Code § 18.2-91, the Commonwealth must prove: (1) the accused . . . broke and entere d the dwelling house in the daytime; and (2) the accused entered with the intent to commit any felony other than murder, rape, robbery or arson.” Robertson v. Commonwealth , 31 Va. App. 814, 820-21, 525 S.E.2d 640, 644 (2000) (citing Code §§ 18.2-90, 18.2-91). “Breaking, as an elemen t of the crime of burglary, may be either actual or cons tructive.” Davis v. Commonwealth , 132 Va. 521, 523, 110 S.E. 356, 357 (1922). Actual breaking involves the ap plication of some force, slight though it may be , whereby the entrance is effected

. Merely pushing open a door , turning the key, lifting the latch, or resort to other slight physical force is sufficie nt to constitute this element of the crime . But a breaking, either actual or constructive, to support a conviction of burglary, must have resulted in an entrance contrary to the will of the occupier of the house. Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In determining whether the Commonwealth prov ed all of the elemen ts of burglary, ‘“all necessary circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inc onsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’” Hamilton v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 751, 755, 733 S.E.2d 27, 29 (1993) (quoting Boothe v. Commonwealth , 4 Va. App. 484, 492, 358 S.E.2d 740, 745 (1987)) (emphasis added). “It is ‘within the pr ovince of the jury to determine what inferences are to be drawn from proved facts, provided the inferences are reasonably related to those facts.’” Commonwealth v. Hudson , 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d

8 Instruction 11 given by the tria l court to the jury, without objection, reads: “Breaking, as used in these instructions, is the use of some force, however sli ght, to gain entry.”- 12 - 781, 786 (2003) (quoting Inge v. Commonwealth , 217 Va. 360, 366, 228 S.E.2d 563, 567-68 (1976)). We “must determine not whether ther e is some evidence to support [appellant’s] hypothesis of innocence but, rather, whether a reasonable fact finde r, upon consideration of all the evidence, could have rejected appellant’s theories and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Corbin v. Commonwealth , 44 Va. App. 196, 202, 604 S.E.2d 111, 114 (2004). “Whether a hypothesis of innocence is re asonable is a question of fact.” Id. at 203, 604 S.E.2d at
114. When Miramontes left for work at approxi mately 4:00 a.m. on March 29, he closed the door of his home. Although Miramontes testifie d that his “wife and children leaves after myself[,]” the record is silent as to when the ot her occupants may have left , or whether they left the door completely or pa rtially open or closed. Appellant’s hypothesis of innocence required th e jury to find that Miramontes’ family members left the residence before he arrived a nd that they left the entrance open permitting him to simply walk in through a fully opened door . Although no signs of forced entry were found around the door or windows i mmediately after the burglary was detected, the evidence established appellant and his comp anion had no lawful authority to enter Miramontes’ residence, and when Detective Michael arrived, he described the interior of the residence as “ransacked.” The jury, consistent with the instruction it was given, rejected appellant’ s hypothesis, finding that he applied some force, however slight, to gain en try into Miramontes’ reside nce. On this record, we cannot say that the fact finder’s rejecti on of appellant’s hypothesis of innocence was unreasonable. For these reasons, we affirm the j udgment of the trial court that the evidence was sufficient from which the jury could reasonably find that appellant “broke” into Miramontes’ residence in order to steal his pr operty, and sufficient to establis h that he was guilty of burglary.- 13 - 2. Conspiracy to Commit Burglary and Grand Larceny Appellant also contends that the evidence in the record is not su fficient to support his convictions of conspiracy to commit burglary and to commit gra nd larceny of both Menard’s and Miramontes’ property. He cont ends that his “innocent actio n” of knocking on Menard’s door and asking to speak to someone can only be cons idered criminal if bootstrapped to an alleged burglary that occurred “on the opposite end of the traile r park” at Miramontes’ house. 9 He also contends that the Commonwealth failed to establ ish the identity of the person with whom he conspired and, without doing s o, the Commonwealth cannot establ ish that he conspired with another to commit either burglary or grand larceny. “Conspiracy is defined as ‘an agreement betw een two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.’” Wright v. Commonwealth , 224 Va. 502, 505, 297 S.E.2d 711, 713 (1982) (quoting Falden v. Commonwealth , 167 Va. 542, 544, 189 S.E. 326, 327 (1937)). “The Commonwealth may prove the existence of a conspiratorial agreement by circumstantial evidence and need not prove an explicit agreement.” Gray v. Commonwealth , 30 Va. App. 725, 736, 519 S.E.2d 825, 830 (1999), aff’d , 260 Va. 675, 537 S.E.2d 862 (2000). Thus, “a conspiracy may be inferred from the ove rt actions of the parties . . . .” McQuinn v. Commonwealth , 19 Va. App. 418, 425, 451 S.E.2d 704, 708 (1994). Where it is shown that the [accused] by their acts pursued the same object, one performing one part an d the other performing another part so as to complete it or with a view to its attainment, the jury will be justified in concluding that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object.

9 Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in convi cting him of conspiracy to commit burglary of Miramontes’ home because “the Commonwealth cannot prove the object felony of burglary.” Appellant cites no authority for this proposition and failing to do so, he has not complied with the provisions of Rule 5A :20(e). “Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not merit appellate consideration.” Buchanan v. Buchanan , 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Accordingly, we will not consider this claim of error on appeal.- 14 - Amato v. Commonwealth , 3 Va. App. 544, 552, 352 S.E.2d 4, 9 (1987) (quoting 16 Am. Jur. 2d Conspiracy § 42 (1979)). “[T]he crime of conspiracy is complete when the parties agree to commit an offense.” Gray v. Commonwealth , 260 Va. 675, 680, 537 S.E.2d 862, 865 (2000). “In Virginia, no overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime is necessary.” Id. From the evidence presented, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that appellant and his companion agreed to commit burglary and grand larceny of Miramontes’ and Menard’s property. Appellant’s act of knoc king on doors of the residences, while his companion operated as a lookout, was evidence from which the jury could reasonably find the existence of a common plan, agreed to by appellant and his companion, to break into residences after determining the targeted residences were not occupie d, and to steal property from within. See McQuinn , 19 Va. App. at 425, 451 S.E.2d at 708 (jury entitled to infer existence of common purpose or plan from development and collection of circumstances) . Menard’s presence in her residence, thereby disrupting appellant’s plan to commit burglary and grand larceny there, di d not relieve appellant of criminal liability for conspiracy to commit burgl ary and grand larceny there, as the conspiracy was complete when appellant formed the agreem ent with his companion to unlawfully enter and take property from the targeted residences. Gray , 260 Va. at 680, 537 S.E.2d at 865. Moreover, Paz’s testimony that one man was carrying out a PlayStation while “the other guy [] was carrying a pillow case like Santa Claus on his back,” each placing the items into the white Oldsmobile, provides further evidence that appellant and his companion acted in accordance with a plan created before the bu rglary took place. Appellant’s assertion that the Commonwealth failed to prove the existence of a conspiracy to commit burglary and grand larcen y because the Commonwealth failed to establish the identity of appellant’s co-cons pirator is also without merit. The conspiracy was complete the moment the agreement to commit burglary and gr and larceny was entered into between appellant- 15 - and another person. Heacock v. Commonwealth , 228 Va. 397, 407, 323 S.E.2d 90, 96 (1984). The Commonwealth was not required to establis h the identity of appe llant’s co-conspirator because “the law rightly gives room for al lowing the conviction of those discovered upon showing sufficiently the essential nature of th e plan and their connect ions with it, without requiring evidence of knowledge of all of its details, or of th e participation of others.” Blumenthal v. United States , 332 U.S. 539, 557 (1947). The jury could reasonably conclude from the evidence it received that appellant a nd his companion worked together to break and enter residences in Grassy Creek and to comm it larceny of the propert y they found within. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence wa s sufficient for a rational jury to find that appellant and another person conspired to burglar ize the Menard and Miramontes residences and to commit larceny of the property within those structures.
III. CONCLUSION We conclude that the trial c ourt did not err in joining the several Grassy Creek offenses for trial. We also conclude that the trial co urt did not err in denying appellant’s motions for mistrial based upon Investigator Deeds’ incident al comments relating to offenses other than those for which appellant was on trial, the statemen ts of the prosecutor and trial court that there was only one charge of breaking and entering, and the allegation that the prosecu tor’s closing argument referred to appellant’s involvement in offenses other than those for which he was on trial. We also conclude that any error on the part of the trial court in admitting Deputy Michael’s testimony that the white Oldsmobile Paz observed at Menard’s and Miramontes’ residences was registered to a person with whom appellant lived was harmless, as other competent evidence connected appellant to that car. Finally, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that appellant was guilty of burglary- 16 - of Miramontes’ residence, conspiracy to co mmit burglary, and conspi racy to commit grand larceny of Miramontes’ and Menard’s property. Accordingly, we affirm each of appellant’s convictions. Affirmed.