Johnson v. Commonwealth
| Docket Number | 2248-23-3 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 2024 |
| Parties | ANTHONY QUENTIN JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY J. Frederick Watson Judge
(Craig P. Tiller, on briefs), for appellant. Appellant submitting on briefs.
(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Robert D. Bauer, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Athey, White and Frucci
Campbell County Sheriff's Deputy Williams pursued a suspect who drove erratically in his car to escape Williams before abandoning his car and disappearing. Williams searched the car and found fentanyl in the driver's side handle, along with other evidence supporting his testimony that the suspect he pursued was Anthony Quentin Johnson. Johnson was later apprehended and questioned by Williams about the pursuit producing several admissions. He was charged with knowingly possessing a Schedule I or II controlled substance and eluding the police. The trial court convicted him of both charges.
Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him.[1] He argues that the Commonwealth did not show that he possessed the fentanyl or was the suspect in the pursuit and failed to exclude his proffered theory that another person was the suspect. Finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions, we disagree and affirm.
A little after 11:00 p.m. on September 28, 2023, Deputy Williams responded to a call made concerning a gray Acura that had been parked in the "very private gravel lot" of a duplex for 20 minutes. Williams arrived at the parking lot around 11:15 p.m. while it was dark outside and saw a car fitting the description parked there. Because the Acura was facing the road, Williams drove around it so as not to approach it "head on" with his active spotlights. Williams then pulled up "directly next to" the Acura, two or three feet from it. The deputy's spotlights illuminated the driver's seat, where the car's sole occupant sat and reacted to the brightness of the lights. During trial, Williams identified Johnson as the Acura's occupant.[2]
As soon as Williams parked, the driver fled the lot at a "very high rate of speed," even "fishtailing" as he drove off the gravel lot and onto the paved street. Williams pursued the Acura with headlights on but emergency lights and sirens off. The Acura was always within Williams's eyesight and went 70 mph on the 45-mph road, which had no other vehicles on it. At some point in the pursuit, Williams turned his sirens on, the Acura reached 85 mph, and the driver veered over double-yellow lines and "into the oncoming lane of travel." The Acura started to take a left turn before ultimately making a U-turn and parking on the side of the road near Treadway Circle, a trailer park. Williams continued to pursue the suspect in his patrol vehicle.
Williams was about 50 yards away from the now-parked Acura when he saw the suspect exit and begin running into Treadway Circle. Williams testified that he got "a clear view of [the suspect's] face" and that the suspect was wearing a long-sleeve yellow shirt or sweatshirt and dark-colored pants. Williams pursued the suspect and tried to cut off his escape by driving to the furthest entrance of Treadway Circle but was unsuccessful.
Williams returned to the parked Acura and saw the suspect kneeling on the ground in front of it and facing Williams's direction. Williams testified that his patrol vehicle's lights were on, that he got yet "another look" at the suspect, and that he had no doubt that the suspect was the defendant, Johnson. The suspect fled again on foot into Treadway Circle, but this time Williams did not pursue him for long because he believed calling K-9 services to the scene would be the "best course of action" to locate the suspect.
Williams returned to the Acura. Prior to searching it, he looked through the driver's side window from outside the vehicle and noticed a "red cut straw" with "a white residue" on the interior door handle. Williams determined that the straw was likely a device for "snorting" narcotics and searched the vehicle. A forensic analysis confirmed that the straw contained fentanyl, a Schedule II controlled substance.
During his search, a gray and white phone plugged into the car radio was illuminated as it rang "non-stop" through the car speakers. Williams recognized the black male figure on the phone's wallpaper screen as Johnson.
Other items that Williams found in the search were a certificate of title for the Acura signed six days prior listing Johnson as the owner, a debit card listing Johnson as the holder, and a served arrest warrant listing Johnson as the defendant.
The last relevant item recovered in the search was a dash camera with an interior view that was operative. Williams obtained a search warrant to look inside the device and found photos from the same day of the pursuit. One photo was a still shot taken at 4:10 a.m. showing a black male whom Williams identified as Johnson. Another still shot was taken at 3:01 p.m. with the same male and a yellow sweatshirt lying in the back seat, which Williams identified as being the same yellow sweatshirt worn by the suspect during the pursuit incident. There were no photos or recordings taken during the actual pursuit.
Johnson was not found on the day of the incident but was arrested and interviewed by Williams in jail at a "later date." The interview was recorded, and proper Miranda[3] warnings were given. Johnson denied that he was in the car during the incident but admitted that he owned it and had been driving it earlier on the day of the incident. He did not deny that everything found in the vehicle was his. He also admitted that he used fentanyl the day of the incident, that he "used [the cut straw] to sniff Fentanyl," and that the straw "could have possibly been" his. He acknowledged that using fentanyl violated the terms of his probation.
Johnson testified at trial that he does not know "for sure" whether the straw belonged to him because of the alleged involvement of a third party whom Johnson claims to have been the suspect in the incident. Johnson stated that around 8:30 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. he went to the Knights Inn hotel in Amherst County, Virginia, and fell asleep in a hotel room while a man named Josh Tanner was present. Johnson asserted that Tanner then stole his car and engaged in the police chase with Deputy Williams. Johnson opined that Tanner "could have" been the one who possessed the cut straw. Johnson also noted that Williams wrote in his report that the suspect appeared to be approximately six feet tall, whereas Johnson is five feet eight inches. But Johnson never reported the car stolen and did not mention Tanner's name during his interview with Williams or at any other time before trial.[4] At the bench trial, the trial court weighed the conflicting testimony of Johnson and Williams and found Williams's "unequivocal[]" testimony to be credible. Williams had "three different opportunities" to see the suspect and identified him as Johnson.[5] The trial court found that Williams's inaccurate description of the suspect's height did not undermine his credibility: Johnson was found guilty of one count of possessing a Schedule I or II drug and one count of eluding police. He was sentenced to five years in prison, of which three were suspended.
On appeal, Johnson argues that the Commonwealth's evidence is not sufficient to prove that he possessed the drug residue found in the car since he alleges that he was not driving the car during the incident. He also contends that the Commonwealth's evidence is insufficient to convict him of eluding police because it fails to show that he was driving the fleeing car.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the party who prevailed at trial. Hargrove v. Commonwealth, 77 Va.App. 482, 506 (2023). The trial court's judgment should be affirmed unless "plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Id. at 506-07 (quoting Ele v. Commonwealth, 70 Va.App. 543, 548 (2019)). Pieces of circumstantial evidence may sustain a conviction if their combined weight is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if no single piece is sufficient alone. Id. at 507 (quoting Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va.App. 495, 505 (2011) (en banc)).
The circumstantial evidence taken together, however, must exclude every reasonable theory of innocence and is not sufficient if it is "as consistent with a hypothesis of innocence" as with one of guilt. Young v Commonwealth, 275 Va. 587, 592 (2008) (citing Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215, 218 (1994)). The trial court weighs the evidence, determines any reasonable inferences that should be drawn from it, and decides "whether to reject as unreasonable" the theories of innocence put forward by the defendant. Hargrove, 77 Va.App. at 507 (quoting Commonwealth v. Moseley, 293 Va. 455, 464 (2017)). Whether a theory of innocence is reasonable is a question of fact that is "binding on appeal unless plainly wrong." Emerson v. Commonwealth, 43 Va.App. 263, 277 (2004) (quoting Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 1, 13 (1997)). "As the Supreme Court has admonished and we here emphasize, it is the fact finder, not this Court, that determines whether a defendant's hypothesis is reasonable." Fary v. Commonwealth, 77 Va.App. 331, 347 (2023) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514 (2003)). We ...
To continue reading
Request your trial