Gary Dean Stevens v Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Elder, Annunziata and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
GARY DEAN STEVENS
v. 	Record No. 2300-94-1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 	DECEMBER 19, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
John D. Gray, Judge
Stephen K. Smith for appellant.
Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney
General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Following a bench trial on October 20, 1993, the appellant,
Gary Dean Stevens ("Stevens"), was convicted of knowingly
possessing a motor vehicle from which the vehicle identification
number ("VIN") had been removed. 	On appeal, Stevens argues that
the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. 	Finding
no error, we affirm.
On April 8, 1993, Hampton Police Officer Susan Canny stopped
Stevens for driving with an expired City of Poquoson sticker.
Stevens indicated to Canny that he did not have his license
(which had been suspended), that he had no registration, and that
he had obtained the car's license tags from an abandoned car.
Canny arrested Stevens for driving on a suspended license and
improperly using state license tags.
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
Canny testified that, upon inspecting the car, she noticed a
hole in the dash where the VIN tag belonged. 	After reading
Stevens Miranda rights, Canny asked him about the VIN. 	Stevens
admitted that he had removed the VIN because it was loose,
stating that he had the VIN tag somewhere in the car or at his
home. 	After searching the car, Canny found only a paper VIN
taped to the door. 	Canny ran a check on the paper VIN and found
that the car was registered to Gerald Allen Thomas of Poquoson.
Stevens testified that he had purchased the car from Gerald
Thomas who was his sister's fiance. 	Thomas was not present at
trial.
At trial, Stevens denied telling Canny that he had removed
the VIN and claimed that the VIN was attached to the dash at the
time of his arrest. 	Stevens' sister testified that she had
noticed the VIN attached to the car the next day upon retrieving
the car from impoundment.
When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal
in a criminal case, this Court views the evidence in a light most
favorable to the Commonwealth. 	Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216
Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). 	On review, this Court
does not substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of
fact. 	Cable v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 236, 239, 415 S.E.2d 218,
220 (1992). 	Instead, the trial court's judgment will not be set
aside unless it appears that the judgment is plainly wrong or
without supporting evidence. 	Code § 8.01-680; Josephs v.

- 3 -
Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 99, 390 S.E.2d 491, 497 (1990) (en
banc) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358
S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987)).
Code § 46.2-1075 makes it unlawful for any person to
knowingly possess a motor vehicle, "the motor number, serial
number, or identification number of which has been removed,
changed, or altered." 	Code § 46.2-1072 requires that the VIN be
"stamped, cut, embossed, or attached in such a manner that it
cannot be changed, altered, or removed without plainly showing
evidence which would be readily detectable . . . . The number
shall be die stamped, cut, or embossed into or attached to a
permanent part of the vehicle which is easily accessible for
verification." 	The Court must construe these two closely
interrelated sections together. 	See Virginia Real Estate Board
v. Clay, 9 Va. App. 152, 157, 384 S.E.2d 622, 625 (1989); ABC
Trucking, Inc. v. Griffin, 5 Va. App. 542, 547-48, 365 S.E.2d
334, 337-38 (1988). 	Doing so, Stevens' contention, that the
paper VIN attached to the car's door precludes his conviction,
must fail. 	The piece of paper taped to the door simply does not
comply with the statutory requirement.
Stevens' admission to Canny that he had removed the VIN from
the dashboard is evidence that he had the requisite knowledge.
Although Stevens subsequently denied admitting to Canny that he
had removed the VIN from the vehicle, the trier of fact was free
to reject his testimony. 	See Rollston v. Commonwealth 11 Va.

- 4 -
App. 535, 547, 399 S.E.2d 823, 830 (1991) (trier of fact "is not
required to accept in toto, an accused's statement, but may rely
upon it in whole, in part, or reject it completely"). 	Here,
Canny's testimony is corroborated by the fact that Canny could
not find the metal plate containing the VIN anywhere in the
vehicle or on the motor block.
Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.