Dagner v. Commonwealth

• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
• Decision Date: 25 October 2016
• Docket Number: Record No. 1228-15-1
• Citation: Dagner v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1228-15-1 (Va. App. Oct 25, 2016)
• Parties: COREY NISHAWN DAGNER v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

COREY NISHAWN DAGNER v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Record No. 1228-15-1

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

OCTOBER 25, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

Present: Judges Chafin, Malveaux and Senior Judge Frank

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION^* BY JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

A. Bonwill Shockley, Judge

Allyson Denise Lee for appellant.

Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Corey Nishawn Dagner, appellant, was convicted in a bench trial of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a non-violent felony in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending there was insufficient evidence to prove he had knowledge that the firearm was present or that he intended to exercise dominion and control over the firearm. For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

"When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial and consider all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Jones v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 121, 124, 661 S.E.2d 412, 414 (2008).

Appellant was a back seat passenger in a small vehicle Officer Chris Szymanski stopped for a traffic violation.¹ Two others were seated in the back with appellant, including the registered owner of the vehicle. Additionally, Kaye Corbin was driving the car and Warren Reaves was in the front passenger seat. Appellant sat directly behind Reaves.

While speaking to Corbin, the officer noticed appellant was "moving his feet around and he was looking at the floorboard," prompting the officer to direct appellant to stop moving, which he did. The officer then directed Corbin to step out of the car. At that point, the officer noticed an open can of beer in the center console, between the driver and Reaves. Reaves agreed to step out of the car and consented to a pat-down search. The officer recovered what he thought to be cocaine and arrested Reaves for possession of the substance. Officer Szymanski also recovered additional drugs from Reaves' person.

Officer Szymanski asked appellant and the other back seat passengers to exit the vehicle. As appellant got out, the officer noticed an open beer bottle "on the floorboard where [appellant] was sitting." The bottle was "where [appellant's] feet would have been" behind Reaves' seat. While looking under the front passenger seat, Officer Szymanski saw "the butt of a gun."² The officer recovered the gun from beneath the seat and identified the weapon at trial.

Officer Szymanski explained the weapon's handle was "facing towards" appellant and that the barrel of the gun faced the front of the vehicle. While he admitted he "couldn't say" whether the gun was visible from where appellant was sitting, he did testify the handle was "closer" to appellant than it was to the front passenger seat. The officer testified the weapon was not "entirely underneath the seat. It was like near the end of the back part of the seat." He further indicated the weapon was found further to the right of the vehicle than the side where the other passengers werelocated. Officer Szymanski immediately saw the gun as he leaned into the car and "glanced over." Upon discovering the weapon, the officer arrested appellant.

Appellant denied the gun was his and claimed Reaves "had the gun." Appellant admitted "he heard it drop" but he denied having touched the weapon.

Officer Szymanski admitted that Reaves could have shoved the gun under the seat, but said that he did not believe Reaves had done so because "[t]hrough my experience, anybody who handles guns knows not to touch it by the barrel. They would always touch [guns] by the handle."³ He also stated that while the other two back seat passengers could have placed the gun under the seat where it was found, that would have been "difficult because the backseat . . . [was] cramped." Appellant did not object to the officer's testimony eliminating the possibility other passengers might have tossed the weapon.

In finding appellant guilty of the offense, the trial court concluded that "even if [the Commonwealth] didn't prove he put [the gun] there, that he knew it was there and it was within his reach."⁴ This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to prove he had knowledge of the presence and character of the firearm or that he exercised dominion and control over the firearm.

When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged on appeal, "a reviewing court does not 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Crowder v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 658, 663, 588 S.E.2d 384, 387 (2003) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979)). "Viewing the evidence inthe light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must since it was the prevailing party in the trial court," Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 330, 601 S.E.2d 555, 574 (2004), "[w]e must instead ask whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,'" Crowder, 41 Va. App. at 663, 588 S.E.2d at 387 (quoting Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 257, 584 S.E.2d 444, 447 (2003) (en banc)). See also Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 437, 442, 657 S.E.2d 499, 502 (2008).

We may not "substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact," Wactor v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 375, 380, 564 S.E.2d 160, 162 (2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Presley, 256 Va. 465, 466, 507 S.E.2d 72, 72 (1998)), nor may we "reweigh the evidence," Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385, 408, 641 S.E.2d 494, 507 (2007), because we have no authority "to preside de novo over a second trial," Haskins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 1, 11, 602 S.E.2d 402, 407 (2004). We must defer, instead, to the fact finder's responsibility "to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Abdullah v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 750, 755, 675 S.E.2d 215, 218 (2009) (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319).

"The Commonwealth may prove possession of a [firearm] by showing either actual or constructive possession."⁵ Barlow v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 421, 429, 494 S.E.2d 901, 904 (1998). "Under a theory of constructive possession, 'the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of both the presence and character of the [firearm] and that it was subject to his dominion and control.'" Byers v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 174, 180, 554 S.E.2d 714, 716 (2001) (quoting Powers v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 474, 476, 316 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1984)).However, "[t]he Commonwealth is not required to prove that there is no possibility that someone else may have planted, discarded, abandoned or placed the [firearm] . . . ." Brown v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 1, 10, 421 S.E.2d 877, 883 (1992) (en banc). "Further, possession of [a firearm], whether actual or constructive, need not be exclusive, but may instead be joint." Kelly, 41 Va. App. at 261, 584 S.E.2d at 449. Moreover, "[a]lthough mere proximity to the contraband is insufficient to establish possession, it is a factor that may be considered in determining whether a defendant possessed the contraband. Ownership or occupancy of the premises on which the contraband was found is likewise a circumstance probative of possession." Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 12, 492 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1997) (citation omitted).

Here, appellant told Officer Szymanski the gun belonged to Reaves and that he heard the weapon drop. Appellant's statement that Reaves possessed the weapon indicated he was aware of the presence and character of the object.

Appellant next contends the evidence is insufficient to prove he exercised dominion and control over the firearm. He hypothesizes that any of the other rear seat passengers or Reaves, the front seat passenger, might have put the firearm under the seat.

Officer Szymanski testified the handle of the firearm was facing toward appellant with the barrel pointing toward the front of the vehicle. The officer further noted, without objection, that "anybody who handles guns knows not to touch [them] by the barrel." From this evidence, the fact finder reasonably could conclude, based upon the position of the weapon beneath the seat, that Reaves did not place the firearm under the seat and that instead, appellant placed it there, thus exercising dominion and control over the weapon.

"Whether the hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is itself a 'question of fact,' subject to deferential appellate review." Cooper v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 558, 573, 680 S.E.2d 361, 368 (2009) (quoting Clanton, 53 Va. App. at 572-73, 673 S.E.2d at 910). "In practical terms, thismeans that — even if not 'inherently incredible' — a defendant's exculpatory version of events need not be accepted by the factfinder." Tizon v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 1, 12-13, 723 S.E.2d 260, 265 (2012) (quoting Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 188, 190, 269 S.E.2d 352, 353 (1980)).

Appellant relies on Hancock v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 466, 465 S.E.2d 138 (1995), where the defendant was one of three back seat passengers. The firearm was found on the floorboard under the driver's seat. The defendant sat behind the driver. Proximity was the only evidence of possession. Id. at 472, 465 S.E.2d at 141. Appellant erroneously applies the facts of Hancoc...