COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Bumgardner
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
GARY W. WRIGHT, S/K/A
GARY WALTER WRIGHT
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0672-97-3 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III
FEBRUARY 24, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY
Thomas H. Wood, Judge
Robert T. Garnett, Assistant Public Defender,
for appellant.
Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Gary W. Wright was convicted in a bench trial for breaking
and entering a dwelling with the intent to commit larceny therein
in violation of Code § 18.2-91. The sole issue on appeal is
whether the evidence is sufficient to identify Wright as the
person who broke into and entered the dwelling. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm the conviction.
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. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438,
443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987).
Viewed accordingly, the evidence proved that David Walker
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
vacated his house after it was damaged by flood waters. Late one
afternoon, he returned to inspect the house. Walker testified
that he looked through a window and saw Gary W. Wright walking
around the inside of the house. A few minutes later, he saw
Wright and another man walking between his house and a vacant
house next door. Walker inspected his house and found that the
back door which he had secured with boards had been forcibly
opened. Walker entered the house and determined that a sewing
machine was missing. He also noticed that a step ladder and a
can of construction material had been placed under a ceiling fan
in the living room. Walker testified that he had known Wright
for twenty years and that he was certain that Wright was the man
he had seen walking through the house.
Appellant contends that Walker was mistaken in identifying
Wright as the person inside the house because he only saw the
intruder for "a couple of seconds" and his ability to see into
the house would have been impaired by the bright afternoon
sunlight. However, the trial court, sitting as the finder of
fact, believed Walker's testimony. "The trial judge's
determination of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to
be given to their testimony are questions exclusively within the
province of the [trier of fact]." Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.
App. 194, 199, 379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989) (alteration in
original) (citation omitted). The Commonwealth's evidence was
competent, was not inherently incredible, and is sufficient to
- 2 -
support beyond a reasonable doubt the trial court's conclusion
that Wright was guilty of breaking and entering Walker's house
with the intent to commit a larceny therein.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 3 -