Kanandez Epperson v Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Coleman, Willis and Bumgardner
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
KANANDEZ EPPERSON MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 1750-97-2 	JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Timothy J. Hauler, Judge
(Sharon A. Fitzgerald; Eck, Collins &
Marstiller, on brief), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on brief.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Kanandez Epperson appeals his bench trial conviction for
failing to return leased property in violation of Code
§ 18.2-118. 	He contends the evidence is insufficient to support
the conviction. 	At trial, Epperson failed to make a motion to
strike the evidence at the close of the Commonwealth's evidence
or at the conclusion of all the evidence. 	Epperson did not
present a closing argument. 	When the trial judge asked for
Epperson's comments at the close of the evidence, defense counsel
replied: 	"Judge, I'm going to submit it on the evidence."
Epperson did not make a motion to set aside the verdict.
Under Rule 5A:18, in order to preserve the question of the
sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must, at a minimum,
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
make a timely motion to strike the evidence at the conclusion of
the defendant's evidence, or in a bench trial present an
appropriate argument in summation, or make a motion to set aside
the verdict. 	See Parnell v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 342, 349,
423 S.E.2d 834, 838-39 (1992); Fortune v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.
App. 225, 228, 416 S.E.2d 25, 27 (1992); Campbell v.
Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 479-81, 405 S.E.2d 1, 1-3 (1991)
(en banc). 	Epperson did not make an objection to the sufficiency
of the evidence at any stage of the proceedings. 	He makes no
claim that good cause existed under Rule 5A:18 for his failure to
do so. 	Contrary to Epperson's contention, Rule 5A:18 makes no
exception for preserving the sufficiency question where the trial
court sits as the trier of fact in a bench trial. 	Accordingly,
Epperson did not preserve for appeal the question of whether the
evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
We consider whether we should invoke the ends of justice
exception in order to review whether the evidence was sufficient.
See Jimenez v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 244, 249-50, 402 S.E.2d
678, 680-81 (1991). 	Because the record does not reveal a reason
to invoke the ends of justice exception, Rule 5A:18 precludes our
review of whether the evidence was sufficient.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.