COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Frank and Clements
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
RICKY RAY WILKINS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0353-01-1 JUDGE JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS
DECEMBER 27, 2001
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
Wilford Taylor, Jr., Judge
David M. Lee for appellant.
Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General
(Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Ricky Ray Wilkins was convicted in a bench trial of
abduction for pecuniary benefit in violation of Code § 18.2-48. 1
On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in ruling the
evidence was sufficient to convict him of abduction under Code
§ 18.2-48 because the detention of the victim was not committed
with the intent to extort money or pecuniary benefit and the
detention was inherent to the commission of the robbery.
Finding no error, we affirm the conviction.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
Wilkins was also convicted of two counts of robbery in
violation of Code § 18.2-58. He does not challenge those
convictions on appeal.
As the parties are fully conversant with the record in this
case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential
value, this opinion recites only those facts and incidents of
the proceedings as necessary to the parties' understanding of
the disposition of this appeal.
Wilkins concedes the evidence presented at trial was
sufficient to show that, in making the robbery victim, Cynthia
Humphrey, go into the store's bathroom and wait there while he
left the store, he committed "simple abduction." He contends,
however, there was no evidence to show that, in detaining
Humphrey, he had the intent "to extort money or pecuniary
benefit." Thus, he concludes, the trial court erred in finding
the evidence was sufficient to convict him of abduction under
Code § 18.2-48.
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on
appeal, we review the evidence "in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences
fairly deducible therefrom." Bright v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App.
248, 250, 356 S.E.2d 443, 444 (1997). We will not disturb a
conviction unless it is plainly wrong or unsupported by the
evidence. Sutphin v. Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 241, 243, 337
S.E.2d 897, 898 (1985).
To establish Wilkins' guilt under Code § 18.2-48, the
Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Wilkins abducted Humphrey "with the intent to extort money
- 2 -
or pecuniary benefit." The Supreme Court of Virginia has held
that "an abduction committed for the purpose of avoiding an
arrest for a robbery or to retain the fruits of a robbery is
perpetrated with the intent to extort pecuniary benefit."
Cardwell v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 501, 511, 450 S.E.2d 146, 152
(1994). 2
Here, the evidence established that Wilkins approached the
counter where Humphrey was working in the store, told her it was
a robbery, and, holding his hand under his shirt "like he had a
weapon," ordered her to take the money out of the cash register
and put it in a bag. After she gave him the money, he ordered
her into the store's back room and told her to go into the
adjoining bathroom and stay there for ten seconds. When
Humphrey went into the bathroom, Wilkins left the store.
Clearly, the evidence shows that Wilkins ordered Humphrey
into the bathroom for the purpose of facilitating his escape
from the scene. Thus, the evidence supports a finding that "the
2
Acknowledging that his position is otherwise untenable,
Wilkins invites us to overrule Cortner v. Commonwealth, 222 Va.
557, 281 S.E.2d 908 (1981), and Barnes v. Commonwealth, 234 Va.
130, 360 S.E.2d 196 (1987), and presumably their progeny,
including Cardwell, because they "ignore traditional principles
of statutory construction." Those cases, Wilkins argues, "were
wrongfully decided, because they ignore the express statutory
requirement of . . . Code § 18.2-48 that there be an intent to
'extort,' not merely a general desire to obtain financial
benefit." However, even were we to find his argument
persuasive, we must decline Wilkins' invitation because "we are
bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia and are
without authority to overrule [them]." Roane v. Roane, 12 Va.
App. 989, 993, 407 S.E.2d 698, 700 (1991).
- 3 -
abduction was committed to protect the fruits of the robbery and
to escape an arrest." Id. We hold, therefore, that the
evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Wilkins abducted Humphrey with the intent to extort pecuniary
benefit.
Wilkins further argues that the evidence was insufficient
to support a conviction of abduction because his brief detention
of Humphrey was not distinct from the restraint necessary to
complete the robbery. The Commonwealth contends this argument
was not preserved for appeal in accordance with Rule 5A:18. We
agree with the Commonwealth.
"The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on
appeal which was not presented to the trial court." Ohree v.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998);
see Rule 5A:18. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that the
trial court and opposing party are given the opportunity to
intelligently address, examine, and resolve issues in the trial
court, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals. See Lee v. Lee, 12
Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1991) (en banc); Kaufman
v. Kaufman, 12 Va. App. 1200, 1204, 409 S.E.2d 1, 3-4 (1991).
Here, Wilkins argued at trial that his detention of
Humphrey did not rise to the level of abduction solely because
Humphrey, who left the bathroom before ten seconds had passed,
"was certainly not in there against her will." Wilkins never
argued at the trial level that his detention of Humphrey was
- 4 -
merely that detention inherent in carrying out the robbery.
Thus, he is procedurally barred from making that argument for
the first time on appeal. Furthermore, our review of the record
in this case does not reveal any reason to invoke the "good
cause" or "ends of justice" exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
Accordingly, we affirm Wilkins' conviction.
Affirmed.
- 5 -