Commonwealth v. Perkins (ORDER), 295 Va. 323

On March 4, 2014, Otis White visited Perkins’s mother; White had over $5,000 in cash in his pocket.
Perkins and his co-conspirator Justin Williams were present; Williams later photographed with cash on social media and admitted the money came from the robbery.
As White and Perkins’s mother left the apartment, White felt someone behind him; he saw Perkins holding a pistol, then was struck from the right by Williams and in the back of the head by an object White believed was Perkins’s gun, rendering him unconscious.
White sustained facial injuries documented in ER records; his wallet and cash were stolen.
At a bench trial Perkins was convicted of robbery, conspiracy, use of a firearm during a robbery, malicious wounding, and use of a firearm during malicious wounding; the Court of Appeals affirmed some convictions but reversed the malicious wounding and related firearm conviction for insufficient evidence of malicious intent.
The Supreme Court of Virginia granted review limited to sufficiency of the evidence for malicious wounding and use of a firearm during malicious wounding and reinstated those convictions, holding a rational factfinder could infer the requisite malicious intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for malicious wounding (intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill)	Commonwealth: factfinder may infer intent from unprovoked, forceful blow to a vulnerable area with a firearm that rendered victim unconscious and caused injury	Perkins: evidence insufficient to infer intent to cause permanent disability; Williams also struck White, so injuries cannot be attributed to Perkins’s malice	Reversed Court of Appeals; trial court reasonably inferred Perkins acted with malicious intent from the circumstances (blow with firearm to back of head, victim defenseless, injuries resulted)
Sufficiency for use of a firearm during malicious wounding	Commonwealth: if malicious wounding established and a firearm was used, firearm enhancement stands	Perkins: challenges underlying malicious-wounding intent, so firearm-use conviction fails with it	Reinstated firearm-use conviction as dependent on sufficiency of malicious-wounding finding

Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232 (Va. 2016) (on reviewing evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502 (Va. 2017) (presumption that trial court judgment is correct on sufficiency review)
Burkeen v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 255 (Va. 2013) (intent to maliciously wound may be inferred from an unprovoked, forceful blow to a vulnerable area while victim is defenseless)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Bowman v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 492 (Va. 2015) (appellate courts must accept reasonable inferences drawn by factfinder)