Court Opinion

ID: 9897700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:23:55.274027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:24.111176
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Huff, Athey and Fulton

              WESLEY ALLEN GLENN
                                                                               MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.     Record No. 1626-22-3                                           PER CURIAM
                                                                                  OCTOBER 24, 2023
              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. Appellant submitting on brief.

                              (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Justin B. Hill, Assistant
                              Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     Wesley Allen Glenn (“appellant”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for animal

              cruelty, in violation of Code § 3.2-6570. Appellant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to

              support his conviction because the Commonwealth’s own evidence was in conflict. After

              examining the briefs and record in this case, 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).

              For the following reasons, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                                          BACKGROUND1

        On August 12, 2021, Monice Barbour and Travis Michael lived together in Pittsylvania

County with their dog Titus, a one-and-a-half-year-old Australian Shepherd-Alaskan Malamute

mix. Abbey Bogert resided directly across the street from Barbour and Michael. Appellant resided

two lots to the right of Bogert on the same side of the street. A trailer on the lot between appellant

and Bogert stood in a recessed position, granting Bogert an unimpeded view of appellant’s front

yard from her front porch. Bogert had several dogs, including an outdoor dog named Rollie.

        As Bogert arrived home on August 12, 2021, she noticed several workmen completing a

job in the road. She also saw Titus and another dog playing with Michael in Michael’s yard; her

dog Rollie joined them to play with Titus and the second dog. Concerned with how the dogs would

interact with the men working nearby, Bogert watched the dogs intently.

        Bogert saw the three dogs travel in a tight pack from Michael’s yard to her yard, through

the trailer’s lot, to the upper left corner of appellant’s lot near the road. Bogert noted that

appellant’s driveway was U-shaped and that he kept an old truck parked on the side of the house.

Suddenly, Bogert heard a gunshot to her right which she believed came from appellant’s front

porch. Although Bogert did not see who fired the shot, she saw Titus instantly hit the ground

while Rollie and the other dog ran away. Seconds later, Titus got up and ran home towards

Michael’s yard. Because Titus got up so quickly, Bogert did not realize Titus had been shot at

that time. In the meantime, Rollie arrived on Bogert’s front porch and shivered in the corner.

        1
         On appeal, this Court recites 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
this Court 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 to be drawn therefrom.” Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins,
295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)).
                                                -2-
       Barbour arrived home shortly thereafter to drive Michael to a dentist appointment. As she

pulled into her driveway, Grams—a neighbor—flagged her down.2 Grams informed Barbour that

Titus was at her house and something was wrong with him. Barbour followed Grams home and

found Titus on the concrete in front of Grams’s front door. Barbour then returned home to retrieve

Michael.

       Upon arriving at Grams’s home, Michael found Titus on a large pillow outside Grams’s

front door looking “really tired and out of it.” As Michael got closer to Titus he saw “blood was

dripping off [Titus’s] chest” and a hole “on the back of his shoulder and one on the front of his

chest.” Titus tried to stand but he could not put pressure on his left leg. Michael carried Titus back

home and then called the vet. The vet instructed Michael and Barbour how to clean the wound and

stop the bleeding. The treatment was successful, and Titus survived. Appellant never spoke to

Barbour and Michael about the shooting. Nor did he admit to Bogert that he shot at the dogs or

apologize for shooting near Rollie.

       The next day Bogert learned that Michael was investigating whether any neighbors knew

what had happened to Titus. Because she was away on vacation, Bogert told her boyfriend what

she had seen and directed him to tell Michael.

       On August 13, 2021, Animal Control Officer J.L. Keatts and Sheriff’s Deputy Laura

Edmiston were dispatched to Barbour and Michael’s home to investigate Titus’s shooting. After

speaking with Barbour and Michael, who relayed what Bogert’s boyfriend had told them, the

officers went to appellant’s home.

       When the officers asked appellant who shot the dog, appellant replied “does it matter?”

Eventually, appellant admitted that he shot Titus with his 1911 45 caliber firearm because Titus was

attacking his cat, Vada, who died from her injuries. He even told Officer Keatts that he had

       2
           The record does not contain Grams’s full legal name.
                                               -3-
previously warned Titus’s owners that he would shoot the dog if it came back onto his property.

When asked to produce the firearm, appellant complied. Officer Keatts then asked appellant where

the dead cat was and if he had any pictures of the cat. Appellant stated he had no photographs of

Vada’s injuries and that he had disposed of Vada in the woods behind his home. Officer Keatts

asked appellant to show him where appellant claimed he had disposed of the cat. Appellant led

Officer Keatts and Deputy Edmiston to an area 20 feet inside the wood line and pointed in the

direction he believed he tossed the cat. The trio looked in the area appellant indicated but found no

evidence of a dead cat.

       While walking back to the house, Officer Keatts asked appellant where Titus maimed Vada

and where Titus was shot. Appellant indicated that the maiming occurred halfway up his paved

driveway in front of his truck. Officer Keatts and Deputy Edmiston scoured the area for blood or

fur but found no evidence of a struggle in that location, and appellant never indicated that he had

cleaned or washed the area after the incident. Officer Keatts then searched the woods again but

never found a dead cat.

       While standing in front of the officers, appellant asked his three-year-old son if he

remembered what happened to Vada. Appellant’s son indicated that Vada was in the woods but

insisted that she was not dead. Appellant’s wife, who was also present for this conversation, did not

correct the child. At trial, Officer Keatts and Deputy Edmiston testified that appellant appeared

irritated the entire time they questioned him. Bogert also testified that she never saw a cat during

the shooting incident, nor did she observe appellant or anyone else go behind appellant’s home

and throw a cat into the woods.

       At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, appellant moved to strike the charge.

Appellant argued that the Commonwealth had failed to establish a prima facie case of animal

cruelty. He asserted the evidence showed that he shot Titus while Titus was attacking his cat, Vada.

                                                 -4-
Thus, he maintained that the trial court should strike the charge because the Commonwealth’s

case-in-chief was in conflict with itself. The trial court denied the motion.

        Appellant then testified in his own defense. He stated he heard a noise outside his house at

approximately 12:00 p.m. on August 12, 2021. When he looked to see what it was, he saw Titus

and a pit bull running through his yard. According to appellant, Titus had Vada in his mouth while

the pit bull attempted to grab the cat from Titus. Appellant retrieved his firearm, stepped off his

porch, and shot Titus from a distance of about 20 to 30 feet. He claimed that Titus dropped Vada in

front of his truck, which was parked half-way up his driveway, before running off. As appellant

approached Vada, he could tell she was already dead. He testified that he left Vada in the driveway

for three hours before taking her body behind his house and throwing her into the woods. Appellant

admitted he did not contact animal control about Vada’s death or notify Barbour or Michael about

Titus’s maiming of Vada.

        Appellant testified that he was agitated, angry, and upset when officers arrived at his house

the following day to question him about the shooting. He further asserted that the officers attempted

to enter his home without permission when he went to retrieve his firearm at their request.

Additionally, appellant claimed the officers had attempted to talk to his young son about the

shooting, but that his son was unable to talk in intelligible sentences. Appellant acknowledged that,

during the interaction with the officers, his son stated that Vada was not dead, but appellant claimed

at trial that his son had been mistaken.

        On cross-examination, appellant admitted that Titus was not attacking a person when he

fired his weapon. He maintained that the only reason he shot Titus was because Titus was attacking

his cat. Appellant admitted, however, that neither he nor his wife took pictures of the cat’s alleged

injuries, and he stated that his wife did not see him dispose of the cat’s body in the woods.

Nevertheless, appellant asserted that his wife knew he had thrown Vada into the woods behind their

                                                 -5-
house. Appellant further admitted that when he and the officers searched for Vada in the woods,

they could not find any traces of her body. Similarly, when he and the officers examined the part of

the driveway where Vada had allegedly been attacked, they failed to find any blood, fur, or other

evidence indicating that there had been a dead cat in that location within the past 24 hours.

        After appellant denied having ever told Barbour or Michael that he would shoot Titus if the

dog went onto his front yard, the Commonwealth recalled Officer Keatts to rebut appellant’s

testimony. Officer Keatts testified that appellant had told him on August 13, 2021, that appellant

had warned Michael and Barbour, prior to August 12, 2021, that he would shoot Titus if Titus came

into his yard again.

        At the close of all the evidence, appellant renewed his motion to strike. He argued that the

evidence proved Titus attacked Vada and that appellant had used reasonable and necessary force to

stop the attack. He further argued that the Commonwealth had failed to establish a prima facie case

of animal cruelty. The trial court denied appellant’s renewed motion to strike. After its

deliberations, the jury convicted appellant of animal cruelty and the trial court sentenced him to

three years’ incarceration with the entirety of his sentence suspended. This appeal followed.

                                             ANALYSIS

        Appellant raises a sufficiency argument on appeal, asserting that no reasonable fact finder

could have concluded that he committed animal cruelty.

        “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,

                                                 -6-
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)).

       To obtain a felony conviction for animal cruelty, the Commonwealth must prove the

defendant “willfully inflict[ed] inhumane injury or pain” to “any dog . . . that is a companion

animal” and “as a direct result causes serious bodily injury to such dog[.]” Code § 3.2-6570(F).3

       Appellant argues that, in attempting to discredit his version of events, the Commonwealth

presented evidence that appellant shot Titus because Titus attacked his cat. He asserts that this

evidence, if believed, discredited the Commonwealth’s own evidence that he shot Titus in

fulfillment of his prior threat because the dog entered his yard again. Consequently, appellant

maintains, the trial court should have granted his motion to strike because the Commonwealth’s

evidence was in conflict with itself. As such, it was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.

       However, appellant ignores the fact that the Commonwealth’s evidence did not

affirmatively prove that the alleged attack on Vada had actually occurred. Rather, the evidence

was offered to undermine appellant’s own credibility regarding the cause of the shooting.

Appellant was the only person who claimed that Titus had attacked his cat, and he only did so

       3
          “Companion animal” is defined as “any domestic or feral dog . . . or any animal under
the care, custody, or ownership of a person.” Code § 3.2-6500. For purposes of this offense,
“‘serious bodily injury’ means bodily injury that involves substantial risk of death, extreme
physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the
function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.” Code § 3.2-6570(F).
                                               -7-
after officers started questioning him about the shooting based on other witness statements.

Indeed, the police investigation confirmed the total absence of any physical evidence to support

appellant’s claim that Titus attacked and killed Vada or anyone else. To the contrary, the

Commonwealth’s eyewitness testified that Titus was shot while playing innocently with two

other dogs in appellant’s front yard and there was no cat in sight.

        In finding appellant guilty, the jury credited the Commonwealth’s version of events and

rejected appellant’s self-serving testimony. “[T]he credibility of a witness, the weight accorded

the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts are matters solely for the fact

finder’s determination.” Fletcher v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 493, 502 (2020) (quoting

Crawley v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 372, 375 (1999)). “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)). “In its

role of judging witness credibility, the fact finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving

testimony of the accused and to conclude that the accused is lying to conceal his guilt.”

Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 702 (2011) (quoting Marable v. Commonwealth,

27 Va. App. 505, 509-10 (1998)).

        Here, the evidence established that appellant shot Titus while the dog was in his front yard

and playing with other dogs. In doing so, appellant carried out his earlier threat to shoot Titus if the

dog entered his property again. Furthermore, by finding appellant guilty, the jury resolved any

potential inconsistences in the evidence in the Commonwealth’s favor. Viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, this Court holds that a reasonable fact finder could

conclude that appellant shot Titus without just cause.

                                                  -8-
                                         CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the evidence was sufficient to convict

appellant of animal cruelty. Accordingly, this Court affirms the trial court’s decision.

                                                                                           Affirmed.

                                               -9-