COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
ROBERT L. PARKER
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2798-95-1 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
NOVEMBER 5, 1996
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY
E. Everett Bagnell, Judge
Robert O'Neill, Public Defender, for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Robert L. Parker (defendant) was convicted in a bench trial
for possession by an inmate of unauthorized property "capable of
causing death or bodily injury" in violation of Code
§ 53.1-203(4) and, on appeal, challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence. We affirm the conviction.
Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine
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). The judgment of a trial court, sitting
without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict
and will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence
to support it. Id. The credibility of a witness, the weight
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from
proven facts are matters solely within the province of the fact
finder. Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 379 S.E.2d
473, 476 (1989).
The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this
memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a
disposition of the issue on appeal.
On May 4, 1995, defendant, then an inmate at Southampton
Correctional Center, was assigned to cell 219, building C-2. In
accordance with routine "check-in" procedure, both Correctional
Officer Parker and defendant conducted a search of the area,
including a single window with bars and an exterior screen. The
inspection of the window confirmed that the bars were "secure,"
"the screen [was] not . . . broken," "the window panes [were]
in," and the window was operational.
On May 30, 1995, Correctional Officer Daniel was performing
maintenance on the screens of building C-2 and observed a "sharp
pointed object," "resembl[ing] an ice pick," located between the
1
screen and the window of cell 219. Officer Parker was unable to
"recall . . . for sure" searching between the bars and the screen
during his earlier inspection, but noted "that's common policy[]
to look [between the window and the screening]." Moreover, he
testified unequivocally that he would have discovered the
1
The weapon was "seven or eight inches long," with a blue
"cloth handle . . . approximately three-eighths to a half-inch in
diameter."
- 2 -
contraband had it been present on May 4, 1995.
Defendant argues that the evidence failed to establish that
the weapon did not precede him into the cell. We disagree. As
the trial judge noted, the earlier inspection by both the
correctional officer and defendant was "not . . . cursory," and
the weapon was not an object easily overlooked within the window
space. The evidence was, therefore, sufficient to support the
conclusion that defendant had introduced it to the cell sometime
after May 4, 1995, and constructively possessed the weapon at the
time of discovery in violation of Code § 53.1-203(4).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 3 -