Court Opinion

ID: 9945195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 15:16:23.286937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:24.535547
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Athey, Friedman and Raphael
UNPUBLISHED

              ANTHONY ESANDER VASQUEZ
                                                                             MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.     Record No. 1878-22-2                                        PER CURIAM
                                                                               FEBRUARY 27, 2024
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
                                                Lynn S. Brice, Judge

                              (Todd M. Ritter; Hill & Rainey, on brief), for appellant. Appellant
                              submitting on brief.

                              (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Elizabeth Kiernan Fitzgerald,
                              Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     Arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was the driver who eluded police,

              Anthony Esander Vasquez appeals his convictions on three counts of felony eluding and five

              counts of reckless driving. After examining the briefs and the record, the panel unanimously

              holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code

              § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). We affirm Vasquez’s convictions.

                                                        BACKGROUND1

                     The convictions at issue here arise from incidents on June 17 and June 21, 2021, in which

              the driver of a white Nissan Maxima repeatedly eluded police. Vasquez’s identity as the driver

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                     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)). Doing so requires that 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)).
was ultimately established after he was detained in a traffic stop on June 21 and admitted to

having eluded police earlier that day and earlier in the week. He also admitted to having a

GoPro camera in his trunk, and the video from that camera corroborated his flight from police on

June 17.

         The June 17 incident

         On the afternoon of June 17, 2021, Chesterfield Police Officer Donivan observed a white

Nissan Maxima traveling at a high rate of speed, weaving through traffic, and passing other cars

on the shoulder of Chippenham Parkway. Donivan activated his emergency equipment and

attempted to stop the Maxima. Donivan pushed his unmarked Ford F150 to speeds of up to 105

miles per hour, but he was “unable to keep up” with the Maxima, which kept “gaining distance.”

At one point the Maxima slowed down until Donivan caught up, but the Maxima then sped

away. The driver continued to weave through traffic, nearly causing another vehicle to flip over.

Several other times, the Maxima slowed down until Donivan caught up, only to speed away

again.

         Donivan terminated the pursuit when the Maxima crossed into the City of Richmond.

When Donivan turned off his emergency lights, however, the Maxima made a U-turn and raced

back into Chesterfield County toward him. Donivan reactivated his emergency equipment and

chased after it again. The Maxima eventually exited the highway, ran a red light, and sped into a

residential neighborhood. Fearing for the “safety of all involved,” Donivan gave up the chase.

         The June 21 incidents

         Shortly after midnight on June 21, Chesterfield County Police Sergeant Murphy observed

a white Maxima stopped at a red light. After looking at Murphy, the driver of the Maxima made

a U-turn through the red light and sped off. Murphy followed and observed the Maxima as it

drove through a RaceWay parking lot and sped away at more than 100 miles per hour.

                                               -2-
       Two hours later, Virginia State Trooper Bloom came across a white Maxima while on

patrol in Chesterfield County. Aware of the earlier incidents, Bloom ran the vehicle’s tags and

discovered that the license plates on the Maxima had been reported as stolen. Bloom activated

his emergency equipment and attempted to stop the Maxima. The vehicle pulled into a parking

lot but sped off when Bloom pulled up behind it. As Bloom pursued the Maxima, the driver

turned the car’s headlights off and “went completely dark.” The Maxima “bottomed out” on the

road, and Bloom saw sparks flying from the bottom of its frame. Despite driving at speeds up to

86 miles per hour on residential roads, Bloom lost sight of the Maxima and stopped his pursuit.

       Chesterfield County Police Officer Willis received an alert from the Virginia State Police

about Bloom’s pursuit of the Maxima and the car’s license plate number. Soon after, Willis

located the Maxima, activated his emergency equipment, and attempted to initiate a traffic stop.

The Maxima ran a red light and continued toward Richmond with Willis in pursuit. The Maxima

drove at more than 80 miles per hour down “side streets” in a residential area, disregarded traffic

signals, and “completely dusted” Willis, who lost sight of the Maxima after about three miles.

       Later that evening, Chesterfield County Police Officer Hagen observed a white Maxima

with license plates that matched the description from the earlier incidents. Hagen conducted a

traffic stop and detained Vasquez, the vehicle’s driver.

       Sergeant Murphy responded to the scene and spoke with Vasquez, who admitted to

driving the Maxima during the earlier pursuits that day, including in the RaceWay parking lot.

Vasquez said that he fled because he was scared and did not want to go to jail. Vasquez admitted

that he and his mother were the only ones who drove the Maxima. But he said that she had been

incarcerated since June 6. Vasquez mentioned that the Maxima was equipped with a GoPro

camera located in the trunk.

                                               -3-
       Officer Willis also spoke with Vasquez after he was arrested. Vasquez admitted that

what he did was wrong and apologized for putting himself and others in danger.

       Officer Blackwell and Officer Wagner of the Chesterfield County Police also interviewed

Vasquez. Vasquez again admitted that he had fled from officers both that day and earlier in the

week. In his recorded interview, Vasquez said that he panicked “the first time” and fled because

he knew that he “was in a faster car.” He said that this first pursuit was “a couple of days”

before the second one. Vasquez also described his flight from a state trooper in detail and

acknowledged that the Chesterfield police had pursued him.

       The proceedings below

       Before proceeding to trial, Vasquez pleaded no contest to several misdemeanors and

traffic infractions stemming from the events of June 21, including driving with a suspended

license, displaying altered or forged license plates, and having license plates that he was not

entitled to possess. He also pleaded no contest to petit larceny of the tags displayed on his

Maxima. The trial court conducted a plea colloquy and heard a summary of the evidence

supporting those charges. The Commonwealth’s summary included Vasquez’s admission that he

stole the license plates displayed on his Maxima “to keep law enforcement from knowing who he

was.” The trial court accepted the pleas and found Vasquez guilty of those charges.

       Vasquez pleaded not guilty to the felony-eluding and reckless driving charges. At the

bench trial that followed, the Commonwealth introduced the evidence described above, including

the video from Vasquez’s GoPro camera showing Donivan’s June 17 pursuit. The

Commonwealth also introduced the body-worn camera footage of Vasquez’s jail interview.

Vasquez moved to strike the evidence, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he

was the person who eluded police. The trial court denied his motion to strike, and Vasquez

                                                -4-
rested without presenting evidence. The trial court denied his renewed motion to strike and

found Vasquez guilty of all charges.

       The trial court sentenced Vasquez on all charges to 15 years and 84 months of

incarceration with all but 3 years and 24 months suspended. The sentence included 5 years’

incarceration in prison with 4 years suspended on each of the three felony-eluding charges and

12 months’ incarceration in the Chesterfield County jail with 9 months suspended on each of the

5 reckless-driving charges. Vasquez noted a timely appeal.

                                            ANALYSIS

       Vasquez challenges his three felony-eluding and five reckless-driving convictions,

arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was the driver during the June 17 and

June 21 incidents.2 Vasquez notes that Officer Donivan could not identify him as the driver of

the Maxima during the June 17 pursuit, and neither Trooper Bloom nor Officer Willis identified

him as the driver during the June 21 pursuits. Vasquez discounts his confessions to police,

arguing that they lacked “specific reference points to assess what [he] was admitting.”

       We find these arguments unpersuasive because they ignore the mountain of evidence

against Vasquez and the daunting standard of review he faces on appeal. “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)). “The relevant issue on appeal is, ‘upon review of the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could

       2
          At trial, Vasquez conceded the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the June 21
charges involving his flight from Sergeant Murphy. Accordingly, we do not address the sufficiency
of those convictions. See Rowe v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 495, 502 (2009) (“A party may not
approbate and reprobate by taking successive positions in the course of litigation that are either
inconsistent with each other or mutually contradictory.”).
                                                 -5-
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Lambert v.

Commonwealth, 298 Va. 510, 515 (2020) (quoting Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512

(2017)). “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)).

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

the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cuffee v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 353, 364

(2013) (quoting Blevins v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 412, 423 (2003)). On appeal, we review

the trier of fact’s determination regarding the identity of the criminal actor in the context of “the

totality of the circumstances.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 507, 523 (2002) (quoting

Satcher v. Commonwealth, 244 Va. 220, 249 (1992)). “It is firmly established that

‘[c]ircumstantial evidence is competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence

provided that the circumstantial evidence is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable

hypothesis except that of guilt.’” Kelley v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 617, 629 (2019)

(alteration in original) (quoting Pijor, 294 Va. at 512).

       The record here was more than sufficient to establish that Vasquez was the person who

eluded police and drove recklessly on June 17 and June 21. Officer Hagen apprehended Vasquez

on June 21 in a vehicle matching the description of the Maxima involved in the earlier

high-speed pursuits that day and displaying the same license plates observed by Trooper Bloom

and Officer Willis. The GoPro camera footage confirmed that Vasquez’s Maxima was the

vehicle pursued by Officer Donivan on June 17. And Vasquez admitted to Officer Willis,

Sergeant Murphy, and Officer Blackwell that he was the driver. He said that his mother was the

only other person who drove the car, but she had been incarcerated since June 6. Finally, during

                                                 -6-
his trial, Vasquez conceded that the evidence sufficed to establish his identity as the person who

eluded Sergeant Murphy. See supra note 2. Sergeant Murphy also described in detail Vasquez’s

dangerous driving on June 21 and Vasquez’s admission to having previously eluded police.

                                           CONCLUSION

       In sum, the evidence was more than sufficient for the trial court to find beyond a

reasonable doubt that Vasquez was behind the wheel of the Maxima when he drove recklessly

and eluded police during the June 17 and June 21 incidents.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

                                               -7-