Opinion ID: 1058514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: James v. Commonwealth

Text: Darius Tremayne James was convicted in a bench trial in the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach of attempted robbery in violation of Code §§ 18.2-58 and 18.2-26; conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of Code §§ 18.2-22 and 18.2-58; and attempted use of a firearm during the commission of attempted robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1. The trial court sentenced James to five years of incarceration on the attempted robbery conviction, five years on the conspiracy conviction, and three years on the conviction for attempted use of a firearm. The trial court suspended both of the five-year sentences. In his petition for appeal to the Court of Appeals, James challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on all three convictions in the following question presented: Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of attempted robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery and use of a firearm during the commission of an attempted robbery? As pertinent to the issue before us, James, in the Argument section of his petition for appeal, first recited several general principles of law, with citations to supporting authority, such as the principle that the Commonwealth must prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. With regard to his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for conspiracy, James summarized, in a single paragraph, the relevant evidence adduced at trial concerning the conspiracy to commit robbery and then stated: One's assumption or hope that another will participate or help, with no discussion or plan in place, is not an agreement; thus there was no conspiracy. With the evidence only consisting of [the accomplice's] presence and testimony regarding what [the accomplice] may or may not have known, that is insufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy to commit robbery. In a per curiam order, the Court of Appeals dismissed the portion of James' petition for appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for conspiracy. James v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2335-06-1, slip op. at 1 (March 21, 2007). The Court of Appeals explained that James' petition for appeal did not comply with Rule 5A:20(e); the petition for appeal does not contain sufficient principles of law, or citation to legal authorities to fully develop [James'] conspiracy argument. [2] Id. James demanded consideration by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, which concluded: For the reasons previously stated in the order entered by this [c]ourt on March 21, 2007, the petition for appeal in this case hereby is denied in part and dismissed in part. James v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2335-06-1, slip op. at 1 (July 5, 2007).