James Lee Frango v. Commonwealth of Virginia
66 Va. App. 34
| Va. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Neighbor Ricky Smith discovered 18 trees (15 oaks, 3 pines) missing from his land and identified Frango as the likely taker; a certified forester prepared a valuation report that was not admitted at the guilt phase.
- Frango admitted cutting some dead snags previously but denied cutting live trees at the relevant time; prosecution relied on witness ID and the list of trees (Exhibit One).
- The Commonwealth explicitly limited the forester’s valuation report to post-conviction review and did not offer it into evidence at the guilt phase.
- The trial court convicted Frango of grand larceny under Code § 55-334.1 (timber) and sentenced him to two years; it also convicted him of an unrelated second‑offense petit larceny and imposed a two‑year sentence (no contemporaneous objection to that sentence).
- On appeal the Commonwealth conceded the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish the $200 threshold for grand larceny, and the Court of Appeals reviewed sufficiency and sentencing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Frango) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to prove value for grand larceny under Code § 18.2-95 (value ≥ $200) | Evidence (tree counts, exhibit list) and forester report (available for court review) support value inference | Record lacks admissible valuation evidence at guilt phase; forester report not admitted | Reversed grand larceny conviction—evidence insufficient to prove value ≥ $200 because forester report was not admitted at guilt phase |
| Sufficiency for conviction under timber statute Code § 55-334.1 (statutory larceny of timber) | Not separately argued; relied on proving theft of timber | Argues petit larceny cannot be sustained absent proof of any value | Statute lacks a value element; evidence sufficed to prove statutory timber larceny and, because value < $200 not proven, supports petit larceny as lesser-included |
| Whether petit larceny requires proof of any value (common law element) | N/A (Commonwealth: evidence showed trees had at least some value) | Cites precedent requiring proof of some value; says no monetary evidence was introduced | Even under common-law standard, jury could infer “some value” (e.g., use as firewood, owner’s complaint, Frango’s prior use); petit larceny supported |
| Sentence for unrelated second-offense petit larceny exceeded statutory maximum (Code § 18.2-104 max 12 months) | Conceded sentence exceeded statutory maximum; invited relief | Argued two-year sentence void and must be set aside | Two-year sentence is void ab initio; vacated and remanded for new sentencing consistent with statutory range |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 605 (appellate standard of review for sufficiency)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190 (Jackson standard explained)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 227 (need to prove value exceeds statutory minimum for grand larceny)
- Wolverton v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 909 (common-law larceny requires only that item have "some value")
- Britt v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 569 (remand for new trial on lesser-included when grand larceny value not shown)