Anthony Wade Ragland v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 519
Va. Ct. App.2017Background
- In Nov. 2014 Anthony Ragland, on work release at Middle River Regional Jail, was found carrying a brown lunch bag containing a powered-on Apple iPhone (showing a Verizon 3G connection) when returning through the jail's primary entrance. The phone was seized and Ragland was charged under Va. Code § 18.2-431.1 for possession of a cellular telephone by a prisoner.
- Ragland had signed the jail’s Work Release Rules, which prohibited cellular phones unless the employer arranged authorization; work release staff testified no inmate had been permitted to bring a cell phone into the facility.
- At trial correctional officers identified the device as a cellular telephone; Ragland never told staff the device was anything other than a cell phone and told officers his employer (Martin’s) would not allow him to keep the phone at work.
- Ragland moved to strike, arguing (1) the device might be a different wireless device (not a “cellular telephone” as the statute read at the time), (2) he was intercepted before entering the locker area so was not yet “incarcerated” for purposes of the statute, and (3) the court should judicially notice FCC materials describing alternative wireless technologies.
- The trial court credited officer testimony identifying the device as a cellular telephone, found Ragland was incarcerated when the phone was discovered, declined to take judicial notice of the FCC web materials, convicted Ragland, and sentenced him to six months.
- On appeal the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence supported that the device was a cellular telephone, Ragland was incarcerated when intercepted, and the proffered FCC materials were irrelevant/authentication was lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ragland) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the device was a "cellular telephone" under § 18.2-431.1 | The device could have been a non-cellular wireless device (satellite or other tech); legislature used "cellular telephone" as a term of art, so Commonwealth must prove cellular tech | Officers identified the device as a cell phone; photos showed an iPhone connected to Verizon; defendant never claimed a different device at the scene | Affirmed: common meaning sufficed; officer testimony and photos adequately proved the device was a cellular telephone |
| Whether Ragland possessed the phone "during the period of his incarceration" | He was intercepted before locker/secondary area and could have stored work items in lockers; thus not yet within custody for statute to apply | Work-release rules and staff testimony showed phones were prohibited from the primary entry inward; no employer authorization existed; the jail treats entry through primary door as incarceration | Affirmed: evidence supported that Ragland was incarcerated when the phone was discovered |
| Whether the trial court should take judicial notice/admit FCC materials | Proffered FCC pages showed alternate wireless technologies exist, undermining that the device necessarily was a "cellular telephone" | The FCC pages were irrelevant to the specific device and lacked authentication; trial court has discretion over admission and judicial notice | Affirmed: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; proffered materials were irrelevant and not authenticated |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68 (discussing standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Crawford v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 84 (appellate reversal only where judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard that conviction must be supportable by any rational trier of fact)
- Wood v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 286 (reasonableness of alternate hypothesis of innocence is a factual question)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 52 (consciousness of guilt and inferences from post-offense statements)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505 (cumulative circumstantial evidence may support conviction)
- Gonzales v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 375 (trial court’s broad discretion on admissibility of evidence)