Douglas A. Warf v. Commonwealth ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
DOUGLAS A. WARF
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1086-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
JANUARY 28, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
John K. Moore, Judge
Andrew G. Wiggin, Assistant Public Defender
(Office of the Public Defender, on brief),
for appellant.
Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Douglas A. Warf was convicted of grand larceny in violation
of Code § 18.2-95. He appeals, contending that the Commonwealth
did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the automobile with
which he was found was actually stolen. We disagree and affirm.
The parties are fully conversant with the record in the
cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no
precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary.
On appeal, the evidence must be viewed in a light most
favorable to the Commonwealth. See Higginbotham v. Commonwealth,
216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). A judgment will
not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly wrong or without
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
evidence to support it. See Traverso v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App.
172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988).
The owner of the stolen car and the arresting officers all
described the car variously as a red 1992 Geo Storm, a "little
Geo," and a "red '92 Geo." The owner testified that she saw her
car on July 18, 1995. The officers took the car from Warf on the
same day. She testified that she had left a single key in the
ignition. Warf told the officers that he had lost "the" key to
the car he was driving.
"When an accused is found in possession of goods of a type
recently stolen, strict proof of identity of the goods is not
required." Henderson v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 811, 812-13, 213
S.E.2d 782, 783 (1975). "'It is not necessary that the identity
of stolen property should be invariably established by positive
evidence. In many such cases identification is impracticable,
and yet the circumstances may render it impossible to doubt the
identity of the property, or to account for the possession of it
by the accused upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with his
innocence.'" Reese v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 671, 673, 250 S.E.2d
345, 346 (1979) (quoting Gravely v. Commonwealth, 86 Va. 396,
402, 10 S.E. 431, 433 (1889)).
All of the evidence in this case indicates that the car
found with Warf is the same car recently stolen. Accordingly, we
affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 2 -