Francisco Beltran Perez v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0835212

Appellant drank seven beers at a nightclub and left around 2:00 a.m.; he accelerated through a yellow light and collided with a Toyota Scion being driven by 20‑year‑old Justus Taylor, who died of blunt head trauma.
An eyewitness and police observed appellant’s car enter the intersection at high speed, heavy vehicle damage, debris, and no signs appellant attempted to avoid the collision.
Appellant’s blood drawn ~3:47 a.m. showed a BAC of 0.145; he cried when told Taylor had died and said he feared deportation.
At a bench trial the Commonwealth presented evidence; appellant did not move to strike, presented no evidence, and declined to make closing argument, submitting the case to the court.
The trial court convicted appellant of aggravated involuntary manslaughter and sentenced him to 20 years (the statutory maximum); appellant appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence as excessive compared to sentencing guidelines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of aggravated involuntary manslaughter	Evidence did not show conduct "gross, wanton, and culpable" or reckless disregard for life; BAC alone insufficient	Evidence (speed, collision facts, BAC, expert testimony on impairment) supported reckless disregard	Not preserved under Rule 5A:18; opening statement insufficient to preserve; ends-of-justice exception rejected; claim waived
Sentencing—abuse of discretion / sentence exceeding guideline high‑end	20‑year sentence unreasonable, disproportionate; court relied on single factor (tragic result) and ignored mitigation	Guidelines are advisory; sentence fell within statutory range and court considered mitigating evidence	No abuse: guidelines are advisory, sentence within statutory maximum, appellate review ends

Brown v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 210 (timely and specific objections required under Rule 5A:18)
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 185 (bench‑trial preservation: must move to strike, argue in summation, or move to set aside verdict to preserve sufficiency challenge)
Murillo‑Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 64 (failure to object to sufficiency waives issue on appeal)
Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215 (ends‑of‑justice exception is narrow; insufficiency on appeal requires showing an element was not met or conviction for noncriminal conduct)
Runyon v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 573 (Virginia sentencing guidelines advisory only)
Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555 (sentence within statutory maximum is not an abuse of discretion)