Jerneil Leslie Moody v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1637152
| Va. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Jerneil Leslie Moody and two juveniles (Alexus Hamlette, Saquan Tyler) burglarized a residence and stole multiple items inside (guns, TVs, games, money); Moody also took a white Suburban parked in the driveway.
- Hamlette testified the group planned to steal items to sell, but she saw Moody alone put the Suburban into his possession; the vehicle theft was not part of their prior discussion.
- Moody drove the Suburban away; Hamlette and Tyler left in Hamlette’s car. Moody later parked the Suburban and sought to sell it for parts.
- James Sexton assisted Moody in removing tags and bringing the Suburban to Jermaine Parker so the engine could be removed; Sexton later discussed selling the engine to Terri Robinson.
- Moody was convicted by a jury of statutory burglary, grand larceny (personal property), and grand larceny of a motor vehicle; sentenced to five years on each count, to run consecutively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Moody) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the single larceny doctrine bars separate convictions for (a) larceny of items inside the home and (b) larceny of the vehicle | The vehicle theft was a distinct taking outside the home with a separate intent and post-taking conduct, so separate convictions are proper | The vehicle and the other stolen items were taken in the same incident and impulse; convictions should merge under the single larceny doctrine | Held: The doctrine did not apply; vehicle theft was a separate offense (convictions affirmed) |
| Whether witness testimony was inherently incredible or insufficient to support convictions | Testimony of accomplices (Hamlette, Sexton) sufficiently identified Moody and described acts; jury could weigh any benefits witnesses received | Witnesses had incentives (Hamlette avoided adult prosecution; Sexton not charged) making their testimony unreliable, requiring acquittal or reversal | Held: Jury reasonably credited testimony; not inherently incredible; verdict supported by evidence (convictions affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 61 (discusses single larceny doctrine and its purpose)
- Richardson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 491 (establishes factors for single-impulse inquiry)
- Sagastume v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 466 (vehicle theft treated as distinct from items stolen inside residence)
- Dennos v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 139 (standards for appellate review of single larceny factual findings)
- Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495 (presumption of correctness for fact-finder; reversal only if plainly wrong)
- Yates v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 140 (unchallenged principle that conviction may rest on accomplice testimony)