Court Opinion

ID: 9962330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 15:19:23.279179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:26.577337
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Friedman, Chaney and Lorish

              OMAR RODRIGUEZ-GUEVARA
                                                                               MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.      Record No. 1023-23-3                                         PER CURIAM
                                                                                   APRIL 23, 2024
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
                                               Stacey W. Moreau, Judge

                               (Michael A. Nicholas; Daniel, Medley & Kirby, P.C., on brief), for
                               appellant.

                               (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Kelly L. Sturman, Assistant
                               Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                      Following a jury trial, the trial court convicted Omar Rodriguez-Guevara of two counts of

              second-degree murder, two counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, shooting

              within an occupied dwelling, and arson. On appeal, Rodriguez-Guevara contends that the evidence

              failed to prove that he was the perpetrator. 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). Finding no merit to Rodriguez-Guevara’s argument, we

              affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                        BACKGROUND

                      “In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the

              light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.” Poole v. Commonwealth,

              73 Va. App. 357, 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)). In

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
doing so, we discard any of Rodriguez-Guevara’s conflicting evidence, and regard as true all

credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn

from that evidence. Gerald, 295 Va. at 473.

        On December 12, 2021, Beverly Vaden, Rodriguez-Guevara’s neighbor, heard gunshots

between 3:00 and 5:00 in the morning. Later, Jacob Thomas, a firefighter, responded to a report of

a fire at the house Rodriguez-Guevara shared with Victor Garcia Mayorga and Onesimo Fermin

Silva Garcia, brothers. Thomas entered the residence and found it filled with thick, black smoke.

After extinguishing an active fire near the bedrooms, Thomas discovered the burned bodies of

Garcia Mayorga and Silva Garcia. Both men had been shot multiple times, and autopsies revealed

that the men had died from the gunshot wounds and not the fire.

        During the investigation, the police found nine-millimeter shell casings inside the house.

They also saw an open fuel can in the living room. Pittsylvania County Fire Marshal Scott

Hutcherson, testifying as an expert in fire origins, stated that the fires originated in the bedroom

areas where the police found the victims. He identified a “pour pattern” consistent with an

accelerant being poured to start the fire and concluded that the fire was not accidental.

        Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Investigator Sargent viewed security camera footage from a

nearby church before the time the police discovered the killings and the arson. Based on the video,

she described seeing a light come on in the residence shortly before 5:00 a.m. and then quick flashes

soon after. She testified that the flashes were visually consistent with muzzle flashes from a

firearm. Further, on the video, Investigator Sargent saw a suspect exit the residence at

approximately 7:05 a.m. and walk to a nearby tree line. The person threw something into the woods

and then returned to the house. The same subject exited the residence at 7:41 a.m. and entered a

sedan parked in front of the house. Ten minutes later, the sedan drove off and smoke could be seen

emanating from the house. After viewing the security camera footage from the night of the

                                                  -2-
murders, Investigator Sargent did not see anyone else leave or enter the residence. Later, the police

searched the wooded area near the house and found a bag containing Rodriguez-Guevara’s

identification card and social security card.

        On December 16, 2021, Nevada Police Officer Trevino responded to a welfare call and

found Rodriguez-Guevara in a Toyota Camry parked outside a gas station in Sparks, Nevada.

Rodriguez-Guevara stated that he was traveling from Virginia to California to visit family, but then

said he was driving to Mexico. Rodriguez-Guevara provided Officer Trevino with a Mexican birth

certificate and passport. Upon learning that the car had been reported stolen, Officer Trevino

arrested Rodriguez-Guevara. Rodriguez-Guevara’s employer testified the car in which

Rodriguez-Guevara was found in Nevada appeared to be the same car he drove to work. Further,

the car also appeared the same as the one in the church security camera video seen driving away

from the residence as smoke poured from the structure.

        When questioned by Investigator Sargent, Rodriguez-Guevara claimed that he left the

residence around 7:30 a.m. on December 12 and that the victims were alive, asleep, and snoring.

He denied shooting the brothers or setting the fire. He also denied having discarded his

identification cards in the woods behind the house. Instead, Rodriguez-Guevara claimed that a

fourth man lived in the house and must have been the perpetrator, but the police never located the

person Rodriguez-Guevara identified only as “Martin.”

        The jury found Rodriguez-Guevara guilty of two counts of second-degree murder, two

counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, shooting within an occupied dwelling, and

arson. Rodriguez-Guevara appeals.

                                                ANALYSIS

        Rodriguez-Guevara contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was the

perpetrator of the crimes.

                                                  -3-
        “In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, ‘the

relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.’” Melick v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 122, 144 (2018) (quoting Kelly v.

Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 257 (2003) (en banc)). “This familiar standard gives full play to

the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the

evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Raspberry v.

Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 19, 29 (2019) (quoting Burrous v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 275,

279 (2017)). “In conducting our analysis, we are mindful that ‘determining the credibility of the

witnesses and the weight afforded the testimony of those witnesses are matters left to the trier of

fact, who has the ability to hear and see them as they testify.’” Id. (quoting Miller v.

Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 527, 536 (2015)). “Thus, we will affirm the judgment of the trial

court unless that judgment is ‘plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Id. (quoting Kelly,

41 Va. App. at 257).

        “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 well-established that in considering a sufficiency challenge, “[c]ircumstantial evidence

is as competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently

convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Simon v. Commonwealth,

58 Va. App. 194, 206 (2011) (quoting Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31, 53 (1983)). As with

                                                   -4-
any element of an offense, identity may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Crawley v.

Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 372, 375 (1999). “The Commonwealth need only exclude reasonable

hypotheses of innocence that flow from the evidence, not those that spring from the imagination of

the defendant.” Simon, 58 Va. App. at 206 (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 751,

755 (1993)). “While no single piece of [circumstantial] evidence may be sufficient, the ‘combined

force of many concurrent and related circumstances, each insufficient in itself, may lead a

reasonable mind irresistibly to a conclusion.’” Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495, 505

(2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 273 (1979)). “In

other words, in a circumstantial evidence case . . . the accumulation of various facts and inferences,

each mounting upon the others, may indeed provide sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”

of a defendant’s guilt. Id.

        Here, the evidence proved that Rodriguez-Guevara lived and worked with the victims

during the months before their murders. He admitted he was at the home the day of the killings and

confirmed that he left the residence around the same time his car was seen on the video leaving the

area. The video also captured a person throwing an item into the wooded area behind the house,

where the police later found Rodriguez-Guevara’s identification cards. Immediately after

Rodriguez-Guevara’s car is seen driving away, smoke is seen billowing from the residence. No

other people were seen leaving or entering the house in the hours of surveillance video from that

time. Forensic evidence proved that the victims died of their gunshot wounds well before the fire

began, suggesting that Rodriguez-Guevara was still at the residence when they were killed. The

video and Vaden’s testimony about hearing gunshots indicated that the shots were fired well before

the fire began and during the time that Rodriguez-Guevara was at the house.

        From the totality of the evidence, it was reasonable for the trial court to reject

Rodriguez-Guevara’s claim that another person killed the victims and set the fire. The jury viewed

                                                  -5-
the video evidence and rejected Rodriguez-Guevara’s version of the events. Thus, we find no error

with the jury’s conclusion that Rodriguez-Guevara committed the offenses. We therefore affirm

Rodriguez-Guevara’s convictions.

                                        CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                                          Affirmed.

                                              -6-