George Nathanial Valentine, Jr., s/k/a George Nathan Valentine, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2008 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Haley and Beales
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
GEORGE NATHANIAL VALENTINE, JR., S/K/A
GEORGE NATHAN VALENTINE, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2901-06-1 JUDGE D. ARTHUR KELSEY
MAY 6, 2008
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Joseph A. Leafe, Judge
Harry Dennis Harmon, Jr., for appellant.
Robert H. Anderson, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General
(Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
A jury convicted George Nathanial Valentine of five burglaries, four grand larcenies, two
petit larcenies, and two conspiracies. His petition for appeal challenged his convictions on various
grounds. Pursuant to Code § 17.1-407(C), a judge of this Court issued a per curiam order rejecting
Valentine’s petition as meritless. Valentine requested review by a three-judge panel under Code
§ 17.1-407(D). The three-judge panel granted Valentine’s petition in part, limited to a single issue:
“Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction for grand larceny of the property of Ann
Schiller.” Order, No. 2901-06-1 (Sept. 11, 2007).
In his appellant’s brief, Valentine argues the grand larceny conviction cannot stand because
the property stolen from Schiller did not meet the $200 threshold required for a grand larceny
conviction under Code § 18.2-95(ii). We do not address this argument, however, because “we
disagree with the assumption underlying it.” Lay v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 330, 335, 649
S.E.2d 714, 716 (2007). As the conviction and sentencing orders, closing arguments, and verdict
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
forms all confirm — Valentine was convicted of petit larceny of the property of Ann Schiller.
Whether the value of Schiller’s property fell below the $200 threshold for grand larceny has no
legal relevance. See Foster v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 574, 578, 606 S.E.2d 518, 520 (2004),
aff’d, 271 Va. 235, 623 S.E.2d 902 (2006) (noting that the “value of the goods taken is not an
element of petit larceny”).
In short, Valentine’s argument is “self-defeating,” Lay, 50 Va. App. at 337, 649 S.E.2d at
717, and undeserving of further appellate consideration. We thus affirm his conviction for petit
larceny of the property of Ann Schiller.
Affirmed.
-2-