Hilton v. Commonwealth

• Citation: 797 S.E.2d 781
• Decision Date: 13 April 2017
• Docket Number: Record No. 160458
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Tavon HILTON v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

797 S.E.2d 781

Tavon HILTON

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 160458

Supreme Court of Virginia.

April 13, 2017

G. Russell Stone, Jr. (Bowen Ten Cardani, on brief), Richmond, for appellant.

Aaron J. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

PRESENT: All the Justices

OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN

A jury convicted Tavon Hilton of carjacking and use of a firearm in the commission of carjacking, along with robbery, attempted robbery, attempted malicious wounding and three other counts of using a firearm in the commission of these felonies. On appeal, Hilton contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the Commonwealth's evidence as insufficient to sustain the carjacking and related firearm convictions. He also contends the trial court erred in refusing his proffered jury instruction on carjacking. Finding no error, we affirm Hilton's convictions.

I. BACKGROUND

"In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial." Scott v. Commonwealth , 292 Va. 380, 381, 789 S.E.2d 608 (2016) (citing Baldwin v. Commonwealth , 274 Va. 276, 278, 645 S.E.2d 433, 433 (2007) ). The two victims in this case were Ronald Wetzler and his son, Rodney Wetzler, both of whom testified at trial. Seeking to purchase a used vehicle, Rodney discovered a Craigslist advertisement offering to sell a 2002 Cadillac Seville and called the purported owner, who went by the name of "James,"—later identified by the police as Hilton. Rodney agreed to meet Hilton at the leasing office of an apartment complex to look at the car. Later that afternoon, Ronald drove his son, Rodney, to the leasing office in Ronald's pickup truck. When they found no one at that location, Rodney called Hilton, at which time Hilton directed them to drive to the back of the apartment complex where he would meet them. Ronald then drove to that location, parked his truck and exited it, along with Rodney.

There, they encountered two individuals, Hilton, who introduced himself as James, and another male, who remained unidentified. The advertised car was nowhere to be seen. Hilton said he had sent someone with the car to put gas in it. As the four men chatted at the rear of Ronald's truck, Hilton pulled out a revolver-type handgun, pointed it at Ronald's chest and stated, "don't make me shoot you." Hilton's accomplice proceeded to go through Ronald's and Rodney's pockets. The accomplice took Ronald's truck keys and wallet, but returned the wallet after finding no money in it. He also took cash from Rodney totaling $2,773. After taking the cash and truck keys, Hilton ordered both Ronald and Rodney to get into the truck. When they complied, Hilton and his accomplice started walking away.

A few moments later, Ronald exited his truck with a shotgun, yelled at Hilton and his accomplice to drop the truck keys, and then fired a shot in the air. The assailants ran, after which Rodney grabbed the shotgun from Ronald and chased after them. Rodney ended his pursuit when Hilton fired four shots in Rodney's direction. Hilton and his accomplice then fled from the area.

After the Commonwealth presented its case in chief on the various charges against Hilton at his jury trial, Hilton moved to strike the Commonwealth's evidence on the charges brought against him for carjacking in violation of Code § 18.2–58.1, and use of a firearm in the commission of carjacking in violation of Code § 18.2–53.1. Hilton argued that the evidence was insufficient because it showed only that he took possession of Ronald's truck keys, and not that he actually took possession or control of the truck, as required under Code § 18.2–58.1. The trial court denied the motion to strike. Hilton then renewed the motion to strike at the close of all the evidence based on the same argument, and the trial court again denied the motion.

With respect to the carjacking related charges, Hilton proffered a jury instruction specifically addressed to the jury's consideration of the act of taking the truck keys. The Commonwealth objected to the instruction, arguing that it imposed upon the Commonwealth a higher burden than the law required. The trial court sustained the Commonwealth's objection, concluding that the Virginia model jury instruction tendered by the Commonwealth for carjacking was sufficient.

The jury found Hilton guilty on all charges and the trial court entered judgments of conviction imposing the jury's verdicts, including the sentences of imprisonment fixed by the jury.

Hilton appealed his convictions of carjacking and use of a firearm in the commission of carjacking to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (i) denying his motion to strike the Commonwealth's evidence supporting the charges for those offenses on sufficiency grounds, and (ii) rejecting his proffered carjacking related jury instruction. Hilton's petition for appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals in a per curiam order (Hilton v. Commonwealth , Record No. 0552–15–2 (December 30, 2015)) and again denied by order of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals (Hilton v. Commonwealth , Record No. 0552–15–2 (March 15, 2016)). We subsequently awarded Hilton this appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal in a criminal case, "we review factfinding with the highest degree of appellate deference." Bowman v. Commonwealth , 290 Va. 492, 496, 777 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2015). In such cases, as we have repeatedly stated, "[a]n appellate court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth , 278 Va. 190, 193, 677 S.E.2d 280, 282 (2009) ) (citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318–19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ). "Rather, the relevant question is," upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, "whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (citation omitted); see Commonwealth v. Lambert , 292 Va. 748, 757, 793 S.E.2d 805, 809 (2016) (same); Vasquez v. Commonwealth , 291 Va. 232, 248, 781 S.E.2d 920, 929 (2016) (same).

Based on this standard of review, we hold that there was more than sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to conclude that Hilton was guilty of the crime of carjacking and the related crime of using a firearm in the commission of carjacking.

Code § 18.2–58.1 defines carjacking, in relevant part, as "the intentional seizure or seizure of control of a motor vehicle of another with intent to permanently or temporarily deprive another in possession or control of the vehicle of that possession or control by [among other listed violent or threatening acts] the threat or presenting of firearms...." Thus, to establish the crime of carjacking, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (i) the victim was in possession or control of a motor vehicle; (ii) the perpetrator intentionally seized, or seized control of, the vehicle, either temporarily or permanently; and (iii) the perpetrator so deprived the victim of possession or control of the vehicle by means of one or more of the specifically prohibited acts—which includes the use of a firearm.

This means that under the explicit terms of Code § 18.2–58.1 a perpetrator can commit carjacking without actually seizing the victim's vehicle, i.e., taking possession of it, see Black's Law Dictionary 1564 (10th ed. 2014) (defining "seize" as "[t]o forcibly take possession (of a person or property)"), as occurs, for example, where the perpetrator actually enters the victim's vehicle and drives away. See Pressley v. Commonwealth , 54 Va.App. 380, 387–88, 679 S.E.2d 551, 555 (2009) (carjacker seized pizza deliveryman's car by taking car keys from him through intimidation and absconding with his car). Short of seizure, a perpetrator can violate the statute by only seizing control of the victim's vehicle, i.e., "exercis[ing] power" over it, Black's Law Dictionary at 403 (defining the word "control"), meaning the victim can be deprived of possession or control of his vehicle without the perpetrator actually entering the vehicle.¹ See People v. Gray , 66 Cal.App.4th 973, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 191, 196 (1998) (upholding carjacking conviction where defendant "exercise[d] dominion and control over [victim's] car by force and fear" without entering the car).

As this involves an issue of statutory interpretation of Code § 18.2–58.1, it presents a question of law subject to de novo review. Grimes v. Commonwealth , 288 Va. 314, 318, 764 S.E.2d 262, 264 (2014) (citing Washington v. Commonwealth , 272 Va. 449, 455, 634 S.E.2d 310, 313 (2006) ). "Although penal statutes are to be strictly construed against the Commonwealth," we give the term at issue here, "control," its "ordinary and plain meaning, considering the context in which it is used." Id. In doing so, we are also mindful that "[a] defendant is not entitled to a favorable result based upon an unreasonably restrictive interpretation of [a] statute." Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

In challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to strike the evidence of the carjacking related charges on sufficiency grounds, Hilton shares the Commonwealth's view, and we agree, that for purposes of Code § 18.2–58.1 the evidence established that Ronald was in "possession or control" of his truck while standing beside it with his truck keys in his pocket and conversing with Hilton.² From there, however, Hilton's assessment of the evidence is flawed. He asserts the evidence shows that, throughout Ronald's encounter with Hilton, Ronald was "never out of possession or control of [his] vehicle." Appellant's Br. at 10. Hilton bases this assertion on the fact that Ronald...