White v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 05 December 2017
• Docket Number: Record No. 1991-16-2
• Citation: 807 S.E.2d 242,68 Va.App. 241
• Parties: Raymeka Monique WHITE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

68 Va.App. 241

807 S.E.2d 242

Raymeka Monique WHITE

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 1991-16-2

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Richmond.

DECEMBER 5, 2017

Lauren Whitley, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

Benjamin H. Katz, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Decker, Malveaux and Senior Judge Clements

OPINION BY JUDGE MARLA GRAFF DECKER

Raymeka Monique White appeals her convictions for financial exploitation of a mentally incapacitated person and credit card fraud, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-178.1 and -195. The appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the victim was mentally incapacitated within the definition of the financial exploitation statute. She also argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove that she possessed the credit card without the consent of the cardholder. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the convictions.

I. BACKGROUND¹

In 2003, the victim, A.C.,² contracted West Nile virus

and encephalitis. As a result, she suffered a serious brain injury that significantly compromised her mental and physical capabilities. M.B., the victim's sister-in-law, had her power of attorney. Starting in 2004, M.B. arranged around-the-clock in-home health care for the victim. In 2012, M.B. hired the company A Heart for You to provide A.C.'s nursing care. In 2014, the company placed the appellant in the victim's home as a health care provider.

In 2014, the time of the offenses, A.C. had various mental and physical limitations. She was forgetful and often confused. The victim could not process basic information such as the date, time, or season. She was unable to take care of herself without assistance or to manage her financial affairs. She needed assistance with personal hygiene, dressing

, cooking, and cleaning. Although she was able to hold a conversation, she would usually forget that it had occurred. In addition, A.C. had difficulty conversing; her speech was garbled and sometimes she could not understand simple phrases.

At the beginning of the appellant's placement with the victim, M.B. met with her. M.B. explained the duties of the job to the appellant, including the extent of A.C.'s physical and mental needs. The appellant was expected as "a part of the job" to use the victim's debit card "when [she] took [the victim] out." M.B. relied on the appellant to take A.C. shopping and help her make purchases with the debit card. A.C. often forgot the personal identification number (PIN) and was not dexterous enough to type it on the keypad. Consequently, M.B. provided the appellant with A.C.'s PIN and expected the appellant to enter the PIN if the store required it. In addition, A.C. was prone to dropping the card or "forget[ting] to put it back in her purse," so the appellant was responsible for "making sure it went back in her purse." All receipts for purchases were to be placed in an envelope that M.B. monitored on a regular basis. M.B. told the appellant that she could use the debit card only for A.C.'s expenses. M.B. also told the appellant that she was not to use the card for herself or to withdraw cash for her own benefit.

In late May 2014, M.B. noticed that two cash withdrawals in the amount of $300 each had been made at automated teller machines (ATMs) that month using the victim's debit card. M.B. did not receive receipts for the cash withdrawals. Footage from a surveillance camera at one of the ATMs showed the appellant making the withdrawal on May 25, 2014.

After law enforcement contacted the appellant's supervisor, she telephoned the appellant and told her that her schedule was going to be changed. The supervisor did not confront the appellant about the allegations related to the ATM withdrawals. Without prompting, the appellant suggested that a person named "Peggy had dressed up like her" and "was trying to get her in trouble." Peggy Robinson, an employee of A Heart for You who also provided care for the victim, did not physically resemble the appellant. Of A.C.'s caregivers in May 2014, only the appellant and Robinson had access to A.C.'s debit card.

The Commonwealth charged the appellant with financial exploitation of a mentally incapacitated person, in violation of Code § 18.2-178.1, and credit card fraud, in violation of Code § 18.2-195. The appellant argued in her motion to strike at trial that the Commonwealth had not proved that the victim was mentally incapacitated. She also contended that she had permission to possess the debit card and that A.C. may have told her to withdraw the money.

The trial court found the appellant guilty of both charges. In doing so, the court concluded that it was "abundantly clear that [the victim] is mentally incapacitated" and that there was "no question" that she "suffers from mental incapacity within the meaning of the statute." The appellant was sentenced to three years in prison for the offenses, with all time suspended.

II. ANALYSIS

The appellant argues that the evidence did not support her convictions. She specifically contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that A.C. was mentally incapacitated within the meaning of the financial exploitation statute. The appellant also argues that the Commonwealth did not prove that she possessed the bank card without A.C.'s consent in violation of Code § 18.2-195.

On appeal, this Court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction under well-established legal principles. The Court considers "the evidence and all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth." Molina v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 666, 675, 636 S.E.2d 470, 475 (2006) (quoting Ward v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 648, 654, 570 S.E.2d 827, 831 (2002) ). "Viewing the record through this evidentiary prism requires us to ‘discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth....’ " Kovalaske v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 224, 226, 692 S.E.2d 641, 643 (2010) (quoting Cooper v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 558, 562, 680 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2009) ). The appellant was tried by the circuit court, sitting without a jury. "Consequently, that court was the fact finder, and its judgment is afforded the same weight as a jury verdict." Parham v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 560, 565, 770 S.E.2d 204, 207 (2015).

When considering the sufficiency of the evidence presented below, "[w]e ‘will not disturb the trial court's judgment unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’ " Molina, 272 Va. at 671, 636 S.E.2d at 473 (quoting Hedrick v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 328, 340, 513 S.E.2d 634, 641 (1999) ). In conducting a sufficiency analysis, the appellate court does not "substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact." Parham, 64 Va. App. at 565, 770 S.E.2d at 207 (quoting Jordan v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 153, 156-57, 747 S.E.2d 799, 800 (2013) ). " ‘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.’ " Dietz v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 123, 132, 804 S.E.2d 309, 314 (2017) (quoting Bowman v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 492, 496, 777 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2015) ).

A. Financial Exploitation

The appellant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she financially exploited the victim because it did not support a finding that A.C. was mentally incapacitated within the meaning of Code § 18.2-178.1. To the extent that the appellant claims that the evidence failed to meet the definition as a matter of law, her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence hinges upon interpretation of the statute.

Statutory interpretation is a question of law which we review de novo. Graves v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 196, ––––, 805 S.E.2d 226, –––– (2017). If the language of a statute is "plain and unambiguous, we are bound by the plain meaning of that statutory language."³ Tisdale v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 478, 484, 778 S.E.2d 554, 557 (2015) (quoting Lee Cty. v. Town of St. Charles, 264 Va. 344, 348, 568 S.E.2d 680, 682 (2002) ). Further, we " ‘presume[ ] that the legislature chose, with care, the words it use[d]’ when it enact[ed] a statute." Rives v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 1, 3, 726 S.E.2d 248, 250 (2012) (quoting Zinone v. Lee's Crossing Homeowners Ass'n, 282 Va. 330, 337, 714 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2011) ). Although we construe criminal statutes strictly against the Commonwealth, we also "give reasonable effect to every word" used in the statute. Shreve v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 541, 547, 605 S.E.2d 780, 783 (2004) (quoting Clark v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 673, 683, 472 S.E.2d 663, 667-68 (1996), adopted upon reh'g en banc, 24 Va. App. 253, 481 S.E.2d 495 (1997) ).

Under Code § 18.2-178.1(A) :

It is unlawful for any person who knows or should know that another person suffers from mental incapacity to, through the use of that other person's mental incapacity, take, obtain, or convert money or other thing of value belonging to that other person with the intent to permanently deprive him thereof.

Further, the statute defines mental incapacity. It specifically provides that "mental incapacity" in the context of the statute "means that condition of a person existing at the time of the offense described in subsection A that prevents [her] from understanding the nature or consequences of the transaction or disposition of money or other thing of value involved in such offense."⁴ Code § 18.2-178.1(D) ; cf. White v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 593, 597, 478 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1996) (explaining in the context of a different mentally-incapacitated-victim statute that "proof of general mental incapacity" did not prove that the victim met the specific definition of mental incapacity provided by the statute (quoting Adkins v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 332, 346, 457 S.E.2d 382, 389 (1995) )). The legislature defined the challenged term within the statute...