Erik Tiante Johnson v Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Duff
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
ERIK TIANTE JOHNSON MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 2498-97-4 	JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
OCTOBER 6, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
Alfred D. Swersky, Judge
(Donald R. Allen, on brief), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on brief.
H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Erik Tiante Johnson (defendant) appeals his conviction for
malicious destruction of property in violation of Code
§ 18.2-137. 	He contends the evidence was insufficient to support
his conviction. 	Because we hold the evidence was sufficient, we
affirm.
The parties are fully conversant with the facts in this case
and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedental value,
no recitation of the facts is necessary.
When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we
review the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible therefrom. 	See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438,
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). 	We will reverse the conviction
only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 	See
Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534,
537 (1975).
So viewed, the salient facts of this case provide sufficient
evidence to support the conviction. 	Defendant was the victim's
unfaithful lover whom she had recently expelled from her
apartment. 	Defendant had threatened the victim on previous
occasions and had intimated his desire for revenge. 	The victim
saw him leave work during the time her apartment was entered and
her property destroyed. 	Most importantly, the kind of
destruction indicates defendant was the perpetrator: 	property
belonging to the victim was destroyed while items belonging to
defendant were either missing or disturbed but not damaged.
Because all the circumstances of this case are consistent
with defendant's guilt and inconsistent with his innocence, the
evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. 	See Boothe v.
Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 484, 492, 358 S.E.2d 740, 745 (1987).
Accordingly, defendant's conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.