Edward William Coles, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0930212
| Va. Ct. App. | Apr 19, 2022Background
- On May 13, 2020, Edward W. Coles Jr. entered the Zellers’ home: he first walked through an unlocked front door, left when asked, then forcibly reentered after the door was locked.
- A physical struggle occurred between Coles and homeowner Frederick Zeller; Coles disarmed Frederick, took his Ruger 9mm, and later fired shots into the residence and into his parked car; spent nine‑millimeter casings and a bullet hole were found in Coles’s sedan.
- Police found the Ruger and a magazine inside the house, Coles’s clothes upstairs, and Coles exited the house naked and was arrested; deputies observed him with a small black firearm before his arrest.
- Coles testified he was lost, his phone battery died, he entered seeking help after being shot at while in his car, and he removed his clothes to show officers he was unarmed; the trial court found this version not credible.
- At a bench trial Coles was convicted of statutory burglary, robbery, felony property damage, and possession of a firearm after a felony; he appealed only the burglary and robbery convictions on sufficiency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Coles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to convict of statutory burglary (intent to commit larceny or felony) | Reentry by force after being asked to leave, the altercation, and taking the gun permit an inference of unlawful intent to commit a felony or larceny. | He entered fleeing an armed man and sought help; no evidence he intended to commit a felony or steal (nothing else missing). | Affirmed — factfinder reasonably inferred unlawful intent from forcible reentry and surrounding circumstances. |
| Sufficiency to convict of robbery (intent to steal firearm) | Disarming, retaining the gun, and firing it support an inference Coles intended to permanently deprive Frederick of the firearm. | He only temporarily deprived Frederick of the gun to prevent its use against him; he did not attempt to leave with it. | Affirmed — intent to steal may be inferred from asportation/conversion and Coles’s conduct (retention and use of the gun). |
Key Cases Cited
- McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513 (2020) (presumption that trial court judgment is correct and standard for sufficiency review)
- Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232 (2016) (any rational trier of fact standard for sufficiency)
- Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681 (2011) (factfinder may disbelieve accused’s self‑serving testimony)
- Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 659 (2007) (intent to commit crime may be inferred from illegal entry)
- Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133 (1995) (unauthorized presence in a house may permit inference of intent to commit larceny absent contrary evidence)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 528 (1964) (animus furandi defined as intent to permanently deprive owner)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 254 (1999) (intent to steal may be inferred from asportation and conversion in absence of satisfactory countervailing evidence)
- Carter v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 100 (2010) (intent is formed at time of act and may be inferred from facts and conduct)