Tony James Woodley v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0628232
Va. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Tony James Woodley was convicted after a bench trial for aggravated malicious wounding, grand larceny, reckless driving, and driving on a suspended license in connection with an incident where he stole his employer's truck and injured the employer, Jack Small.
- The incident arose after Woodley, while being driven home due to a stated family emergency, took control of Jack's truck when it ran out of gas, locked Jack out, and drove off while Jack's hands were pinned, dragging him and causing severe, permanent injuries.
- At trial, Woodley argued he took the truck out of necessity, claiming Jack threatened him with a gun; this was not believed by the trial court.
- Woodley appealed on several grounds: sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, a fatal variance in the grand larceny indictment, excessive sentence, and an improperly long license suspension.
- The court affirmed the convictions and sentence as within statutory guidelines but found the license suspension exceeded statutory limits and remanded for correction on that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fatal variance in grand larceny indictment | Evidence proved theft of a vehicle, not vehicle parts, as charged | Theft of entire vehicle also necessarily includes theft of its parts | No fatal variance; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated malicious wounding | Evidence did not show intent/malice or that actions weren't out of necessity | Evidence and witness testimony supported malicious intent; necessity defense was not credible | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for grand larceny (intent to permanently deprive) | Woodley lacked intent to permanently deprive; he fled due to fear | Argument not preserved at trial, but evidence would have supported intent | Not considered—argument procedurally defaulted |
| Legality of sentence and license suspension | 18-year sentence and 99-year license suspension excessive and abused discretion | Sentence within guidelines/statutory bounds; license suspension length conceded was excessive | Sentence affirmed; remanded license suspension for correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505 (standard for evidence viewed in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
- Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250 (appellate review of fact findings; standards for viewing evidence)
- McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513 (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- Scott v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 68 (variance between indictment and proof)
- Purvy v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 260 (fatal vs. non-fatal variances in indictments)
- Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555 (standards for appellate review of criminal sentences)