Jefferson v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 20 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 0638-17-3 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | LATOYA DENISE JEFFERSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Alston, Chafin and Malveaux
Argued at Salem, Virginia
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Carlos A. Hutcherson (Hutcherson Law, PLC, on brief), for appellant.
Robert H. Anderson, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Latoya Denise Jefferson ("appellant") was convicted of two counts of felony welfare fraud, in violation of Code § 63.2-522. On appeal, she argues the trial court erred by: (1) not permitting her to complete her cross-examination of a witness; (2) denying her motion to strike because the evidence was insufficient to prove she received overpayments of $200 or more; and (3) admitting certain evidence during the sentencing phase of her trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm appellant's convictions.
"In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts [are] 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, 608 (2016).
During 2015 and 2016, appellant shared a household with her five children and her boyfriend. Appellant received benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") and fuel assistance through the Pittsylvania County Department of Social Services ("DSS").
In February 2015, appellant completed a renewal application in order to continue receiving SNAP benefits. The application required appellant to disclose her household income, including "money from all jobs," whether "full time, part time, seasonal, temporary, [or] self-employment." Appellant disclosed her income from Citi Trends and her boyfriend's income from Capps Shoes. Appellant did not disclose her income from a job with Frito-Lay that she had held since November 2014.
Sharon Stephens, an eligibility worker with DSS, testified that she processed the renewal application and telephoned appellant to review the document with her. Appellant did not disclose any employment beyond what she had reported in the application. Stephens used the information from the application and the telephone interview to determine the amount of appellant's SNAP benefits.
In September 2015, appellant was required to submit an interim report noting any changes to the information provided in her renewal application. In completing the report, appellant indicated there had been no changes in her household employment or employment income since filing the renewal application in February.
In November 2015, appellant completed a fuel assistance application which required her to list all sources of household income and provide the names of all employers. As in her renewal application, appellant disclosed only Citi Trends and Capps Shoes as employers and sources of employment income.
Appellant completed another renewal application for SNAP benefits in February 2016.1 She disclosed household income from Citi Trends and Capps Shoes and answered "no" when asked whether anyone in her household had been fired or laid off, quit a job, or reduced their work hours since she applied for benefits.
Sharon Stephens of DSS received the renewal application, ran a check for additional income, and discovered that appellant had held an unreported job since 2014. Stephens telephoned appellant to review the application with her and asked appellant about the undisclosed employment. Appellant told Stephens she was no longer working at that job. A human resources coordinator for Frito-Lay later testified that appellant had worked for the company from November 2014 until February 2016.
Dawn Hankins, DSS's fraud investigator, met with appellant and reviewed with her the 2015 and 2016 renewal applications, the September 2015 interim report, and the November 2015 fuel assistance application. During the meeting, appellant acknowledged reading and understanding the language in the 2015 renewal application which said she could be breaking the law by providing false, incomplete, or incorrect information. Appellant told Hankins she "might have had a part-time job" that started around December 2014, but did not report it in February 2015 because she had not known how long she would be working at Frito-Lay. Appellant also told Hankins she did not think she had to report her Frito-Lay income because it did not exceed the income limits for SNAP benefits. When Hankins asked appellant about her 2016 renewal application, and whether appellant had had any employment or income beyond what she disclosed in that document, appellant replied that she was not working at the additional job when she completed the application. When Hankins pointed out that the application asked whetheranyone in the household had been laid off or fired, quit a job, or gone on reduced hours, appellant stated that she "didn't know she had to put the job there." Hankins told appellant she had failed to disclose her additional employment income in the fuel assistance application, and appellant agreed.
Hankins testified that the more income appellant had earned, the fewer benefits she would have been entitled to receive. She explained that a qualifying applicant receives some deductions from their gross monthly income, and their monthly benefits are then based on that adjusted gross income. Among the deductions appellant qualified for were a standard deduction based on the size of her household, as well as shelter and utility deductions. Hankins testified that appellant also received a 20% earned income deduction from the reported income from Citi Trends and Capps Shoes. She also explained that, as per DSS policy, unreported income is not eligible for the 20% earned income deduction—"[y]ou don't get anything off the top of that [income]."
Using appellant's disclosed income and her pay records from Frito-Lay, Hankins calculated the amount of benefits overpaid to appellant month by month and on a cumulative basis. Hankins calculated that appellant received a total overpayment of SNAP benefits in the amount of $3,417 and a total fuel assistance overpayment of $37.14.2 During the period covered by appellant's first indictment, from March 1 to August 31, 2015, appellant received $1,900 in SNAP overpayments. During the period covered by appellant's second indictment, from September 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016, appellant received $1,517 in SNAP overpayments.
During cross-examination, counsel for appellant asked Hankins what the impact on appellant's benefits payments would have been if appellant had reported her income from Frito-Lay. Hankins replied that if appellant had reported those earnings, they would have been added to the earnings from Citi Trends and Capps Shoes to calculate appellant's gross household income. Appellant would have received deductions from that gross amount, but because appellant would have had more reported income, the amount of her benefits would have decreased. When counsel asked, "[b]ut that number would have been the number that she would have been entitled to," the Commonwealth objected, arguing that appellant's question assumed facts not in evidence and had already been testified about. The trial court sustained the objection, stating that When counsel for appellant asked whether the trial court was stating that the amount of the benefits overpayment was irrelevant, the court clarified that it was not. However, the court reiterated that
At the close of the Commonwealth's case, appellant moved to strike, arguing that the evidence did not establish that the value of the benefits she improperly received was $200 or more. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant was convicted of two counts of felony welfare fraud, in violation of Code § 63.2-522.
At the sentencing hearing, Hankins testified that while reviewing her calculations, she discovered there had been an error in calculating appellant's March 2015 SNAP benefits and overpayment. She stated that appellant was eligible to receive a housing deduction that month as well as an adjustment for child support received and that neither the deduction nor the adjustment had been applied. Based upon a recalculation that took those matters into account, Hankins stated that appellant's total overpayment for SNAP benefits increased by $18. The amount of appellant's fuel assistance overpayment remained unchanged.
Appellant did not object to Hankins' testimony, but did object to the Commonwealth's introduction of a one-page document she had prepared which summarized that testimony. The trial court admitted the document over appellant's objection.
Appellant timely appealed her convictions.
Appellant argues the trial court erred when it did not allow her to finish cross-examining Hankins about the amount of benefits she would have received had she reported her Frito-Lay income. This curtailment of her cross-examination, appellant contends, violated her rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
"[W]e review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude testimony using an abuse of discretion standard." Jin v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 294, 308, 795 S.E.2d 918, 925 (2017) (quoting Commonwealth v....
To continue reading
Request your trial