COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Elder
Argued at Salem, Virginia
LEANGELO MAURICE HALL
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1375-99-3 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
OCTOBER 31, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG
Richard S. Miller, Judge
James C. Reeves, III, for appellant.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
On appeal from his bench trial conviction for malicious
wounding, in violation of Code § 18.2-51, Leangelo Maurice Hall
contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove: (1) that
he caused bodily injury; and (2) that he possessed the requisite
intent "to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill." We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
I.
"On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable
inferences fairly deducible therefrom." Martin v. Commonwealth,
4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). "We will not
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
reverse the judgment of the trial court, sitting as the finder
of fact in a bench trial, unless it is plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it." Reynolds v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App.
153, 163, 515 S.E.2d 808, 813 (1999) (citation omitted).
On December 1, 1998, Tony Randolph Hunter was walking to
the store when he encountered Hall and two other men, Adrian
Cruz and Ricardo Cruz. Following an argument, Hunter ran away.
Adrian Cruz, however, caught Hunter and slammed him to the curb
breaking his arm. Hunter was unconscious for a few minutes.
When he regained consciousness, Hall was "stomping" his injured
arm from his elbow to his hand and the other two men were
"standing back, watching while the attack took place." Hunter
pleaded with Hall to stop because his arm was "broken," but Hall
said "he didn't care," continuing to stomp Hunter's arm. Hunter
testified that he had a "print" on his knuckles and that as a
result of his injuries, he could not move his hand.
Dr. Michael J. Dimnick, an orthopedic surgeon, testified
that Hunter suffered a transverse fracture of his humerus and
damage to his radial nerve. The nerve damage precluded Hunter
from twisting his wrist or moving his fingers. Dr. Dimnick
testified that Hunter would not regain "full use" of his hand.
He testified that the humerus injury was consistent with someone
jumping on the arm if it were lying flat or with Hunter's being
thrown to a hard surface.
- 2 -
At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence and again
at the conclusion of all the evidence, Hall moved the court to
strike the evidence and to reduce the charge from aggravated
malicious wounding to assault and battery. The Commonwealth
argued that Hall had acted in concert with Ricardo and Adrian
Cruz and that Hall had aggravated the injury caused by Cruz's
slamming Hunter to the curb. At no time during his motion to
strike did Hall contend that proof of a specific intent to
"maim, disable, disfigure, or kill" was insufficient to support
a malicious wounding conviction. Rather, he argued only that
Hall caused no bodily injury to Hunter.
The trial court held that the evidence was insufficient to
convict Hall of aggravated malicious wounding. However, it
found the evidence sufficient to convict Hall of the
lesser-included offense of malicious wounding because "the
stomping on the complaining witness's lower arm in the manner
which it was done was with the intent to disable the victim in
the case with the intent reckless to establish malicious
wounding."
II.
Hall first contends that the evidence fails to show that he
inflicted any bodily injury. We disagree.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
evidence supports an inference that Hall acted in concert with
Adrian and Ricardo Cruz to cause bodily injury to Hunter. An
- 3 -
argument broke out among the four men. Hunter ran and was
chased by the other three men. Adrian Cruz caught him first and
slammed him to the curb. Then, Ricardo Cruz caught up and
jumped on Hunter punching him until he was rendered unconscious.
When Hunter regained consciousness, Hall was "stomping" his
injured arm while Adrian and Ricardo Cruz stood by watching.
Immediately thereafter, Hall, Adrian Cruz and Ricardo Cruz fled
the scene. Hunter was left with a "print" on his knuckles, a
fractured humerus and radial nerve damage. In the doctor's
opinion, Hunter will not regain full use of his hand.
The foregoing evidence supports the conclusion that Hall,
acting in concert with Adrian and Ricardo Cruz, caused Hunter
bodily injury. Moreover, the evidence that Hunter had a "print"
on his knuckles supports the conclusion that Hall's personal
conduct caused bodily injury.
The trial court was not required to believe Hall's
testimony that the bottom of his shoe touched Hunter's hand only
once. 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 he or she is lying to conceal
his or her guilt. See Speight v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 83,
88, 354 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1987) (en banc). The trial court
believed Hunter's testimony and did not accept Hall's version of
the incident. "The credibility of the witnesses and the weight
accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who
- 4 -
has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is
presented." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455
S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995) (citations omitted).
III.
Hall next contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction because it failed to prove that he
possessed the requisite intent to "maim, disfigure, disable, or
kill" as required by Code § 18.2-51. Hall failed to preserve
this issue. Thus, Rule 5A:18 bars our review.
We will not consider trial court error as a basis for
reversal where no timely objection was made, except to attain
the ends of justice. Rule 5A:18. "Where an appellant makes a
general objection to the sufficiency of the evidence that
'[does] not specify in what respects [appellant] considered the
evidence to be insufficient to prove [the charged offense,]
. . . the issue of whether the evidence was insufficient to
prove a particular [unmentioned] element of the offense was not
properly preserved.'" Marshall v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App.
627, 636, 496 S.E.2d 120, 124 (1998) (quoting Redman v.
Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997)).
Although Hall moved to strike, he failed to assert
specifically that the evidence was insufficient to prove an
intent to "maim, disable, disfigure, or kill." The ends of
justice exception does not apply because the record does not
show that Hall "was convicted for conduct that was not a
- 5 -
criminal offense[,] or . . . that an element of the offense did
not occur." Redman, 25 Va. App. at 221-22, 487 S.E.2d at
272-73.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 6 -