Court Opinion

ID: 9897680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:23:36.850447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:59.386729
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Beales, Causey and Senior Judge Haley
              Argued at Richmond, Virginia

              STEVE TIMOTHY WILKERSON, JR.
                                                                          MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.     Record No. 0960-22-2                               JUDGE DORIS HENDERSON CAUSEY
                                                                               NOVEMBER 8, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                   FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAROLINE COUNTY
                                                Sarah L. Deneke, Judge

                              (Maureen L. White, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting
                              on brief.

                              Tanner M. Russo, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
                              Attorney General; Maureen E. Mshar, Assistant Attorney General,
                              on brief), for appellee.

                     Following a one-day trial, a jury convicted Steve T. Wilkerson, Jr. of eluding the police, in

              violation of Code § 46.2-817(B). On appeal, Wilkerson asserts that the evidence was insufficient to

              support his conviction. For the following reasons, we disagree, and affirm the conviction.

                                                      BACKGROUND1

                     On June 19, 2021, Sergeant Andrew Williams and Deputy Chris Williams (collectively, the

              officers) were dispatched to Big Oak Drive in Caroline County to investigate a domestic

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                     1
                       On appeal, “we review the evidence in the ‘light most favorable’ to the
              Commonwealth.” Clanton v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 561, 564 (2009) (en banc) (quoting
              Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514 (2003)). That principle requires us to “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 that may be drawn
              therefrom.” Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 254 (2003) (en banc) (quoting Watkins v.
              Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 335, 348 (1998)).
disturbance. As they traveled to Big Oak Drive, the officers learned that Wilkerson was involved in

a domestic dispute with his mother, Evelyn Green, and that he had left the residence on a black and

orange motorcycle. Wilkerson was reportedly wearing a black helmet with white designs and riding

along Secretariat Road. The officers also learned that Wilkerson had an outstanding warrant for his

arrest and was possibly armed. Dispatch sent the officers a picture of Wilkerson that depicted him

as an African American male with braided dreadlocks.

       As the officers approached Big Oak Drive, Deputy C. Williams observed an individual

matching dispatch’s description sitting on a black and orange motorcycle in the front yard of a home

on Secretariat Road. Deputy C. Williams testified that he briefly saw the individual without a

helmet with his braids “kind of up” on his head. Deputy C. Williams pulled into the driveway of the

home. Sergeant A. Williams exited the vehicle and commanded the individual to turn off the

motorcycle and show his hands. But the individual disregarded those instructions and drove away

on the motorcycle. The officers immediately activated the lights and sirens of the patrol vehicle and

began pursuit.

       Dash camera footage shown to the jury depicted the officers pursuing the motorcycle along

Secretariat Road, a street without lane designations. The individual turned left and headed

eastbound on Route 30 at a high rate of speed and passed at least two vehicles. The pursuit lasted

several minutes and reached speeds of over 107 miles per hour. When the individual proceeded

through a red light without stopping, the pursuit was terminated.

       One of Green’s neighbors, Tanya Washington, testified at Wilkerson’s trial. Washington

said that she and Green had been neighbors since 2015 and that Wilkerson lived with Green.

According to Washington, Green asked Washington’s husband to call 911 on June 19, 2021. While

on the phone with emergency services, Washington saw Wilkerson exit his mother’s home, get on

his orange and black motorcycle, and drive off. Washington testified that Wilkerson wore his hair

                                                -2-
in dreadlocks at the time. She affirmed that she never saw anyone but Wilkerson drive that

motorcycle. Washington also stated that from her home she “can actually see the whole road on Big

Oak to Secretariat and the first three houses.” She watched Wilkerson drive from Green’s home to

the third house on Secretariat Road.

        During cross-examination, Washington testified that her stepdaughter, Ambria Childs, and

Wilkerson have a child in common. Washington denied having any knowledge of the ongoing

custody hearings between Wilkerson and Childs.

        Savanna Pair, an associate of Wilkerson’s, also testified at trial. She said that she had

known Wilkerson for four years and that she regularly socialized with him in the Summer of 2021.

Pair further testified that during June 2021, Wilkerson wore his hair in dreadlocks, drove a black

and orange motorcycle, and wore a black helmet with “creamish” white skulls. She never saw

anyone but Wilkerson drive that motorcycle and wear that helmet. Pair asserted that Wilkerson had

threatened her life to dissuade her from testifying at trial.

        On cross-examination, Pair acknowledged that she had been convicted of a crime of moral

turpitude. She also admitted to being friends with Childs. Pair testified that she had accompanied

Childs to court hearings about custody for the child.

        John Kennedy Lee, Wilkerson’s cousin, testified that he lived on Secretariat Road. On June

19, Lee observed Wilkerson in the yard between his mother’s residences and another home when

officers arrived in the driveway. As officers arrived, Lee observed Wilkerson get on his motorcycle

and drive off. On cross-examination, Lee admitted that he was a convicted felon.

        At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, the trial court denied Wilkerson’s motion to

strike the charge. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court denied Wilkerson’s renewed

motion to strike. The jury found Wilkerson guilty of eluding, and the trial court sentenced him to

two years with one year and three months suspended. Wilkerson appeals.

                                                   -3-
                                            ANALYSIS

       Wilkerson asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because no

witness identified him as the individual who eluded the officers on June 19, 2021; however, there is

ample evidence in the record to support his conviction.

       “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is

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

support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original)

(quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does

not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204,

228 (2018)). “Rather, the relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v.

Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193

(2009)). “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.’” McGowan, 72 Va. App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v.

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

       Code § 46.2-817(B) states that it is unlawful for anyone who has

               received a visible or audible signal from any law-enforcement
               officer to bring his motor vehicle to a stop, [to] drive[] such motor
               vehicle in a willful and wanton disregard of such signal so as to
               interfere with or endanger the operation of the law-enforcement
               vehicle or endanger a person.

Without challenging any other element of the offense, Wilkerson argues the Commonwealth

failed to prove that he was the driver of the motorcycle.

                                                 -4-
       “At trial, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving the identity of the accused as

the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.” Blevins v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 412, 423

(2003). Identity may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Crawley v.

Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 372, 375 (1999). “The sufficiency inquiry does not distinguish

between direct and circumstantial evidence, as the fact finder is entitled to consider all of the

evidence, without distinction, in reaching its determination.” Rams v. Commonwealth, 70

Va. App. 12, 27 (2019) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Circumstantial evidence is

not ‘viewed in isolation’ because the ‘combined force of many concurrent and related

circumstances, each insufficient in itself, may lead a reasonable fact finder’ to conclude beyond a

reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty.” Id. (quoting Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269

Va. 451, 479 (2005)).

       “The sole responsibility to determine the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given

to their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts lies with the fact finder.”

Blankenship v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 608, 619 (2020) (quoting Ragland v.

Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 519, 529-30 (2017)). Moreover, “the conclusions of the fact finder

on issues of witness credibility may be disturbed on appeal only when we find that the witness’

testimony was ‘inherently incredible, or so contrary to human experience as to render it

unworthy of belief.’” Ashby v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 540, 548 (2000) (quoting Fisher v.

Commonwealth, 228 Va. 296, 299-300 (1984)). “In all other cases, we must defer to the

conclusions of ‘the fact finder[,] who has the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses.’”

Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Schneider v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 379, 382 (1985)).

       Here, several witnesses testified that Wilkerson owned a black and orange motorcycle

and a black helmet with white decals. Washington and Pair never saw anyone but Wilkerson

drive the motorcycle. Pair never saw anyone but Wilkerson wear the black and white helmet.

                                                -5-
Furthermore, Pair and Washington confirmed that Wilkerson wore his hair in dreadlock braids in

June 2021.

       Additionally, on June 19, 2021, Washington saw Wilkerson leave Green’s home on his

black and orange motorcycle and drive to a house on Secretariat Road. Lee lived on Secretariat

Road and saw Wilkerson in the yard when the officers arrived. As the officers pulled into the

driveway, Wilkerson drove away on his motorcycle.

       As they drove along Secretariat Road, Sergeant A. Williams and Deputy C. Williams saw

an individual matching Wilkerson’s description next to an orange and black motorcycle. When

they attempted to talk with the individual, he put on a black and white helmet and drove away.

The officers activated their lights and sirens and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. The officers

observed the motorcyclist continue along Secretariat Road until he turned left onto Route 30,

passed several vehicles, and accelerated to speeds over 107 miles per hour. After the

motorcyclist sped through a red light, the officers terminated their pursuit. Considering the

totality of the evidence, a reasonable factfinder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that

Wilkerson was the person who drove the black and orange motorcycle that recklessly eluded the

officers. Because this finding is not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it, we will not

disturb Wilkerson’s conviction on appeal.

                                          CONCLUSION

       We find that the evidence was sufficient to convict Wilkerson of eluding. Accordingly,

we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

                                                 -6-