Hi, I'm raising awareness to governor of Virginia to help my boyfriend.. here’s his backstory

On September 6, 2017 he was tried in a bench trial before Judge Bryant L. Sugg of the the Newport News Circuit Court on thirteen felony counts which includes 4 counts of Robbery, 4 counts of of use of a firearm in the commission of a Felony, 3 counts of conspiracy to Rob, 1 count of Grand Larceny Auto Theft, and 1 count of Carjacking all of these charges which allegedly happened at the age of just 16 years old.

They sentenced him to 240 years in prison with all but 45 years suspended.

Prior to the trial, they erred in denying his motion to strike where the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed the robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, carjacking and conspiracy to rob during the incidents where there was no proof of an agreement with anyone beforehand to commit robbery with regard to the incidents from September 12th - September 16th, 2015, when he was 16 years old. The evidence indicated that he didn't have a firearm, merely showed his presence at the scene but failed to show he voluntarily participated in the offenses and failed to show that he shared the criminal intent of the armed robbers.

With regard to the incident on September 16, 2015 neither one or anyone else testified that he was one of the persons who committed that Robbery. No fingerprint evidence or DNA evidence linked him to the Robberies. He never made any confessions or incriminating statements with regard to that Robbery. He was never found to be in possession of anything which had been taken from him during the Robbery. He was found in possession of the cell phone but his pressions was not exclusive as demonstrated by the fact that the OTHER PERSON besides him was in photographs on the cell phone. But the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed the Robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony or that he conspired with another to Rob the person. He may have acquired the property from someone else who actually committed the Robbery of the person in regard to the incident.

Likewise, the Commonwealths Evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed three counts of conspiracy to Rob where there was no proof of an agreement with anyone to commit robbery with regard to the incidents on September 12, 2015, September, 13th 2015 and September 16, 2015. No one testified about the existence of any such agreement. The circumstantial evidence was consistent with the hypothesis that each of the robberies occurred SPONTANEOUSLY, in absence of any agreement. Each of those robberies may have occurred because of a sudden opportunistic decision to commit a robbery rather than as a result of any pre-arranged l scheme, plan or agreement. This is a reasonable hypothesis of INNOCENCE that the Commonwealth’s evidence failed to exclude.

His counsel explained his Multi-faceted motion to strike in regard to number of issues. First, they had the situation of possession of recently stolen property but they didn’t have anything coming from him that ties him to that particular crime and there’s no admissions or confessions in regard to that. Secondly, the Alleged victim of the carjacking there was nothing coming from my boyfriend or the allege victim in terms of identification of my boyfriend. Thirdly, to all of the conspiracy charges there is no evidence of any sort of prior discussions between my boyfriend and any other individuals. Fourthly, he asked the court consider that the incident on September 12th, 2015 where the allege victims there was evidence from both of them that he DID NOT have a gun it was appeared to be held by another individual. There was also some disparity in the testimony given by allege victims in terms of how many beers they had been drinking. Fifthly, Detective Jones had did the investigations in relation to the incidents on September 12th & 16th 2015 where he stated he had a conversation with my boyfriend for about an hour or so but NOTHING was said by my boyfriend in terms of admissions or being involved in those particular incidents.

Because the Commonwealth’s evidence failed to exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence that someone else committed the Robberies and that my boyfriend acquired the cell phone afterwards from the actual Robber the trial court should have GRANTED his motion to strike the Robbery, Use of a firearm charge and the conspiracy to Rob charge pertaining to the September 16th, 2015 incident. Likewise the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed three counts of conspiracy to Rob where there was no proof of an agreement with anyone to commit robbery with regard to the incident on September 12, 2015, the trial court should have GRANTED the motion to strike the three conspiracy charges. Moreover because the commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed the Robbery, Carjacking, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and conspiracy to Rob pertaining the incident on September 13, 2015 the trial court should have struck those charges. Finally, because the commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed one count of grand larceny auto theft, two counts of robbery, or two counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony pertaining to the incident with the two allege victims on September 12, 2015 the trial court should have GRANTED motion to strike those charges. With all those reasons the court should have reversed the judgement of the trial court and set aside all thirteen of his convictions.

Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S 436 (1996): is the right of an accused person to have an attorney present at a custodial interrogation and to END THE INTERROGATION by invoking his right. In the case his counsel moved to suppress statements elicited from him during a lengthy interrogation conduction by successive waves of police detectives contending that 1. His statements were made after he INVOKED MIRANDA protections by telling the detectives at least three times that he didn’t want to talk to them, yet the invocations were never honored by police who persisted their interrogation. And 2. The 16 year old’s purported waiver of his Miranda rights in the ABSENCE OF HIS PARENTS was not truly voluntary, knowing and intelligent. The emphasis of what he’s trying to accomplish which is not talking to the detectives and that’s where the interrogation should have ended. 

Miranda, 384 U.S at 44. Even before Miranda, the fifth amendment required that confessions be found voluntary before they could be admitted as evidence.

227 Va. 164, 170, 313 S.E. 2d 290, 393 (1984): In a criminal case where the quantum of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt the imperative to secure conviction free of speculation, surmise and conjecture is constitutionally based.

It was a well ESTABLISHED RULE IN VIRGINIA that mere presence at a scene of a crime and subsequent flight are not sufficient to establish that one is in a principal in the second degree. Even willingness that the crime is done is not sufficient unless such willingness issues into suggestion of encouragement or help. Smith V. Commonwealth the prosecution must prove that the accused did or said something showing his consent to a felonious purpose and his contribution to its execution. To establish the accused he must be present and shown to have encouraged or approved the commission of the crime. He must share the criminal intent of the actual perpetrator or be guilty over some overt act. Hall V. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 533, 303 S.E. 2d 903 (1983).

The unexplained possession of recently stolen goods permits an interference of larceny by the possessor. Bright V. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 248, 251, 356 S.E. 2d 443, 444 (1987).

Va. code 18.2-22, conspiracy to commit a felony makes it a felony to”conspire, confederate or combine with another or others to commit a felony within the commonwealth.” “Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more persons by some concerted action to commit an offense.” Cartwright V. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372, 288 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1982): Amato V. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 544, 352, S.E.2d 4 (1987): Feigley V. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 717, 722, 432 S.E.2d 520, 524 (1993). The crime is “complete when the parties agree to commit an offense.” Gray V. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 675, 680, 537 S.E.2d 862, 865 (2000). “There can be no conspiracy without an agreement but the commonwealth must prove that the agreement existed.”

 

The 14th amendment says that NO person shall be made to suffer the onus criminal conviction except upping sufficient proof — defined as evidence necessary to convince a trier of fact beyond reasonable doubt of existence of every element of the offense.

It also states in Smith V. Commonwealth 192 Va. 453, 461-62 65 S.E. 2D 528, 533 (1951): Suspicious circumstances no matter how grave or strong are not proof of guilt sufficient to support a verdict of GUILTY. The actual commission of the crime by the accused must be shown by EVIDENCE beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a CONVICTION.

His appeal was denied because the Commonwealth of Virginia believed that there was no error on their end everything they did was fair and factual. 

 

 

 
#WHERESTHEJUSTICE