Alexander J. Dennos, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
63 Va. App. 139
| Va. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Dennos contracted (oral, May 18, 2012) to "seal" Bradley’s leaking roof for $1,000 and cashed a $1,000 check the same day.
- The next day Dennos returned unannounced, said sealing was insufficient, offered to replace the roof for $3,700, and obtained an $1,800 check (partial advance) which he cashed two days later.
- Dennos ordered no materials, hired no workers, performed no work (aside from leaving a few sample shingles weeks later), and missed promised start dates.
- Bradley’s lawyer sent a certified demand under Code § 18.2-200.1; Dennos acknowledged receipt, admitted he owed $2,800, and paid $100 toward it, but did not return the balance within the statutory period.
- A jury convicted Dennos of two counts of construction fraud under Va. Code § 18.2-200.1; he appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence and that the single-larceny doctrine required merging the counts into one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove construction fraud | Commonwealth: Dennos obtained two advances with fraudulent intent and failed to perform or return funds after demand | Dennos: Evidence insufficient to show intent to defraud at time advances were taken | Affirmed — a rational factfinder could infer fraudulent intent from misrepresentations, failure to perform, failure to use funds, avoidance, and refusal to return money after demand |
| Application of single-larceny doctrine (unit of prosecution) | Dennos: Multiple advances were part of a single fraudulent scheme and thus merge into one count | Commonwealth: Two separate advances on different dates, for different promises, evidenced distinct larcenous impulses | Affirmed — two separate counts upheld because each advance was tied to a separate promise and separate impulsive acts, not a single-impulse theft |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190 (Va. 2009) (applies Jackson standard in Virginia)
- Rader v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 325 (Va. Ct. App. 1992) (fraudulent intent may be inferred from defendant’s conduct and representations)
- Mughrabi v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 538 (Va. Ct. App. 2002) (identifies circumstances implying fraudulent intent in construction cases)
- Holsapple v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 593 (Va. 2003) (failure to perform work is probative of fraudulent intent)
- Bragg v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 607 (Va. Ct. App. 2004) (single-impulse test for single-larceny doctrine)
- Moore v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 795 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (series-of-impulses analysis under single-larceny doctrine)
- Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240 (Va. Ct. App. 1999) (factors for unit-of-prosecution analysis under single-larceny doctrine)
- West v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 747 (Va. 1919) (historical explanation of single-larceny doctrine)