James Braxton Foley v. Commonwealth ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Senior Judge Cole
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
JAMES BRAXTON FOLEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0977-96-2 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER
FEBRUARY 18, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Robert W. Duling, Judge
Edward D. Barnes (Michael HuYoung; Laura A.
Thornton; Edward D. Barnes & Associates,
P.C., on brief), for appellant.
Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney
General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
James Braxton Foley (appellant) appeals his conviction of
driving while intoxicated in violation of Code § 18.2-266.
He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that
venue was proper in the City of Richmond. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
Code § 19.2-244 states that "the prosecution of a criminal
case shall be had in the county or city in which the offense was
committed." "[T]he burden is upon the Commonwealth to prove
venue by evidence which is either direct or circumstantial. Such
evidence must furnish the foundation for a 'strong presumption'
that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
court." Pollard v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 723, 725, 261 S.E.2d
328, 330 (1980) (citing Keesee v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 174, 175,
217 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1975)). "The facts proved may be aided by
judicial notice of geographical facts that are matters of common
knowledge or shown by maps in common use." McClain v.
Commonwealth, 189 Va. 847, 853, 55 S.E.2d 49, 55 (1949). "When
the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, . . . we
must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible therefrom." Jones v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 566,
572, 414 S.E.2d 193, 196 (1992).
We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the
trial court's conclusion that venue was proper in the City of
Richmond. At trial, Officer Thomas Campbell of the University of
Richmond Police testified that he observed appellant shortly
before his arrest on the night of November 3, 1995. Officer
Campbell testified that he saw appellant driving westbound on
Lakeview Lane, which is on the campus of the University of
Richmond. After appellant objected to the venue of his case in
the City of Richmond, the trial court examined two maps provided
by the Commonwealth: the first was "ADC's Street Map of Richmond
and Vicinity, 10th edition" (ADC map) and the second was a map of
the City of Richmond and environs produced in 1982 by the
Department of Public Works of the City of Richmond. The trial
court then took judicial notice of the location of the University
-2-
of Richmond campus in relation to the boundary between Henrico
County and the City of Richmond and overruled appellant's
objection regarding venue. Upon close inspection, the ADC map
indicates that Lakeview Lane is located within the City of
Richmond's boundaries. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial
court's conclusion that venue was proper in the City of Richmond
was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
Appellant argues that the location of Lakeview Lane is so
near the boundary of Henrico County that evidence in addition to
the ADC map is required to prove that Lakeview Lane is in the
City of Richmond. We disagree. The evidence proved that
appellant was driving westbound on Lakeview Lane. The ADC map
clearly indicates that all of Lakeview Lane is within the
boundaries of the City of Richmond. Because the ADC map clearly
indicates that no portion of Lakeview Lane lies within Henrico
County, the Commonwealth was not required to produce additional
evidence to prove that appellant was within the City of Richmond
when he was driving on this road.
The trial court also based its conclusion that venue was
proper in the City of Richmond upon its examination of the map
produced by the Department of Public Works. Appellant does not
contend that this map failed to show that Lakeview Lane is within
the City of Richmond. Instead, appellant argues that this map is
unreliable because of its age and intended use. However, no
evidence in the record discredits the reliability of this map.
-3-
In addition, a copy of this map is not included in the appellate
record for our review. Because appellant has not met his burden
of presenting a sufficient record from which we can determine
whether the trial court's reliance on this map was erroneous, we
will presume that no error was committed. See Smith v.
Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction of
driving while intoxicated in violation of Code § 18.2-266.
Affirmed.
-4-