Title: Williams v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 081577
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: June 4, 2009

Present:  Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Goodwyn, JJ., and Russell, S.J. 
 
RICKY C. WILLIAMS 
             OPINION BY 
SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL 
v.  Record No. 081577  
            June 4, 2009 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
This appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support a conviction of possession of methadone with intent to 
distribute. 
Facts and Proceedings 
 
Applying familiar principles of appellate review, we will 
state the facts in the light most favorable to the 
Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.  On August 17, 
2005, Detectives McAndrew and Johnakin, of the Portsmouth 
Police Department, initiated a traffic stop of a station wagon 
because one of its brake lights was inoperative.  The driver 
was a man named Clark. Seated beside him in the passenger seat 
was Ricky C. Williams.  The detectives left their unmarked 
cruiser and approached the station wagon, McAndrew to the 
driver’s side and Johnakin to the passenger side.  Detective 
Johnakin saw Williams look over his shoulder at the 
approaching Detective McAndrew and throw three plastic bags 
over his left shoulder with his right hand.  They landed in 
the middle of the back seat.  Detective Johnakin looked 
through the rear window and saw the plastic bags, one of which 
appeared to him to contain heroin capsules.  Detective 
Johnakin opened the passenger door and placed Williams under 
arrest.  When asked where he worked, Williams stated that he 
was unemployed.  Detective McAndrew removed the three plastic 
bags from the back seat and identified their contents as what 
appeared to be heroin, cocaine and methadone, respectively. 
 
Williams was indicted for several drug-related offenses 
and was convicted at a bench trial of (1) possession of heroin 
with intent to distribute (third offense), (2) possession of 
cocaine with intent to distribute (third offense), and (3) 
possession of methadone with intent to distribute (third 
offense).  At trial, the three plastic bags recovered from the 
back seat of the station wagon were identified as one plastic 
bag corner containing 38 capsules of heroin, one plastic bag 
corner containing 1.24 grams of powder cocaine, and one 
plastic bag corner containing ten white marked tablets.  One 
of the white tablets was tested and found to contain 
methadone. 
 
Detective R. M. Holley of the Portsmouth Police 
Department qualified, by stipulation, as an expert witness in 
the packaging, sale, use and distribution of narcotics in the 
City of Portsmouth.  He testified that a “heavy user” of 
heroin would use five to seven capsules per day, that 38 
 
2
capsules represented a five to seven-day supply for a heavy 
user, and that it was "very, very rare" that such a user would 
carry a quantity of capsules amounting to a five to seven-day 
supply of the drug on his person. 
 
The “street price” of the capsules was $10 each, in 
Detective Holley’s opinion, so the heroin represented a value 
of $380 to a user.  The “street value” of the cocaine was 
approximately $100 per gram, he testified, so the cocaine 
powder was worth about $120, while the methadone tablets sold 
for five to ten dollars each, adding $50 to $100 to the total 
value of the items seized in the station wagon.  Detective 
Holley testified that in his experience, no user had ever been 
found in possession of all three of these drugs at any one 
time, and that the evidence was inconsistent with personal 
use. 
 
On cross-examination, Detective Holley testified that the 
quantity of cocaine seized, taken alone, would be “borderline 
close” to being consistent with personal use, but in 
combination with the other drugs it was not.  He said, “I 
don’t ever remember seeing three different drugs [carried] by 
a user together.”  He added, without objection, that it was 
doubtful that a drug user who was unemployed would be carrying 
drugs of so much monetary value with him. 
 
3
 
Detective Holley also was of the opinion that the mere 
combination of heroin and methadone was unlikely for a user, 
because both have the same effect, although the effect of 
methadone lasts for a shorter time.  Methadone, he said, is 
available by prescription, but in that case, the law requires 
that it be kept in a prescription bottle; methadone is also 
dispensed by drug treatment programs in Portsmouth, but is 
only dispensed one tablet at a time.  Detective Holley also 
thought the packaging of the methadone was inconsistent with 
personal use, stating “[t]o put them in a plastic bag corner 
is very unusual for a user of methadone.” 
 
At the conclusion of the trial, Williams made no argument 
concerning the heroin charge and argued only the failure of 
the Commonwealth to prove intent to distribute cocaine and 
methadone, asking the court to find him guilty only of simple 
possession of those two substances. 
 
Williams appealed his convictions to the Court of 
Appeals.  That court denied his petition as to the heroin 
conviction but granted his petition as to possession of 
cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of methadone 
with intent to distribute.  A panel of the Court of Appeals 
heard those cases and, by opinion and order entered June 24, 
2008, affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  We awarded 
Williams an appeal limited to a single assignment of error:  
 
4
“The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s 
ruling that the defendant possessed methadone with the intent 
to distribute.” 
Analysis 
 
The judgment of the trial court, sitting without a jury, 
is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not 
be disturbed on appeal unless "plainly wrong or without 
evidence to support it."  Code § 8.01-680; Britt v. 
Commonwealth, 276 Va. 569, 573-74, 667 S.E.2d 763, 765 (2008).
 
 An appellate court does not “ask itself whether it 
believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt 
beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 
307, 318-19 (1979) (citation omitted).  Rather, the relevant 
question is whether “any rational trier of fact could have 
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 
doubt.”  Id. at 319. 
 
Consistent with his position at trial, Williams does not 
dispute that he was in possession of the drugs that were found 
in the station wagon.1  His appeal rests entirely on his 
                     
1 Williams took the stand at trial but was not asked about 
whether he was in possession of the drugs and said nothing on 
that subject.  On brief, he argues that the vehicle had 
another occupant who might have possessed them.  Because he 
asked the trial court to find him guilty of simple possession, 
we will not consider that argument. 
 
5
contention that the trial court’s finding of intent to 
distribute methadone was unsupported by the evidence. 
 
Absent a direct admission by the defendant, intent to 
distribute must necessarily be proved by circumstantial 
evidence.  See Hunter v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 569, 570, 193 
S.E.2d 779, 780 (1973).  The circumstantial evidence in the 
present case was that Williams possessed three disparate 
drugs, a factor leading to the conclusion that he was engaging 
in the business of drug distribution.  The quantity of heroin 
alone was inconsistent with personal use, as was the packaging 
of the methadone.  In McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 
493, 545 S.E.2d 541, 547 (2001), we held that the packaging of 
drugs was an appropriate factor to consider as evidence of 
intent to distribute.  The aggregate value of the drugs in 
Williams' possession was such that an unemployed person would 
be unlikely to be able to afford them if he were merely a 
user.2  We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support 
the trial court’s finding. 
 
Williams’ principal contention on appeal is that because 
only one methadone tablet was tested, there is no evidence to 
                     
2 When Williams testified as a witness, he was not asked 
whether he was a user of drugs and said nothing on that 
subject.  On appeal, he argues that the evidence was 
consistent with personal use.  There was no evidence that 
Williams was a user of drugs. 
 
 
6
support the conclusion that he was in possession of ten 
methadone tablets.  Therefore, he argues, a reasonable 
hypothesis of his innocence of intent to distribute that drug 
was not excluded by the Commonwealth’s evidence.3 
 
We do not reach Williams' argument concerning the number 
of tablets tested because of our conclusion that the totality 
of the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s 
finding that Williams had the intent to distribute all the 
drugs in his possession.  That intent necessarily included the 
single tablet that was tested and found to contain methadone.  
In making its finding, the trial court was entitled to 
consider all the evidence and was not limited to relying on 
the number of methadone tablets in Williams’ possession. 
Conclusion 
 
We find no error in the Court of Appeals’ determination 
that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Williams’ 
conviction of possession of methadone with intent to 
                                                                
 
3 The certificate of analysis in evidence described the 
tablets as “ten (10) white marked tablets.”  It further 
stated:  “Visual examination determined that the physical 
characteristics are consistent with a pharmaceutical 
preparation containing Methadone.”  Introduced in evidence, 
the tablets were examined by the trial judge who stated that 
they appeared to be identical and appeared to be 
"prescription-type tablets" with a line across them to 
facilitate breaking them in half. 
 
7
distribute.  Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the 
Court of Appeals.  
Affirmed. 
 
8