Troya Andre Wright v Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Coleman, Bray and Bumgardner
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
TROYA ANDRE WRIGHT
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 1019-99-1 	JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III
APRIL 11, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Von L. Piersall, Jr., Judge
Dianne G. Ringer, Senior Assistant Public
Defender, for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Troya Andre Wright was convicted in a bench trial of
felonious assault and battery of a police officer in violation of
Code § 18.2-57(C). 	He was sentenced to two years imprisonment,
consisting of one year and six months suspended and the mandatory
six months to be served in jail pursuant to Code § 18.2-57(C). 	On
appeal, Wright argues that the evidence is insufficient to support
the conviction. 	We disagree and affirm the conviction.
BACKGROUND
City of Portsmouth Police Officer Roxanne Hutt was in uniform
and on bicycle patrol at the Seawall Festival in Portsmouth when

- 2 -
she encountered Wright and Stephanie Montero, his girlfriend,
engaged in an argument. 	Hutt approached the couple to
investigate. 	Wright became belligerent with Hutt, pointing his
finger at her and using profane language. 	Hutt was unable to calm
Wright. 	Hutt, suspecting that Wright was intoxicated because she
smelled an odor of alcohol about him, decided to arrest Wright for
being drunk in public. 	Hutt told Wright that she was arresting
him. 	Officer Joseph Brown, who was in uniform and displaying his
badge, arrived at the scene. 	Brown approached Wright from behind.
Hutt gave Brown the verbal signal to arrest Wright, calling out
the code "10-17." 	Hutt had cuffed Wright's right hand and, as
Brown attempted to cuff Wright's left hand, Wright "tackled" Brown
to the ground and a "scuffle ensued."
Another uniformed officer who had come to assist helped to
subdue Wright. 	This officer testified that he observed Wright
"grab Officer Brown's legs and scoop them from underneath him and
drop him to the ground."
Wright testified that he was arguing with Montero when Hutt
approached. 	Wright stated that Hutt ordered him to step away from
Montero, but Montero was still yelling. 	Wright testified that
Hutt cuffed one hand and told him that he was under arrest. 	He
stated that an unidentified person approached from his left and
"straddled" him, causing Wright and the two officers to fall to
the ground. 	Wright stated that he was unaware that Brown was a

- 3 -
police officer. 	Antonio Elliott testified for Wright and
corroborated Wright's version of the events.
ANALYSIS
Wright argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove
that he assaulted Brown or that he knew the person he assaulted
was a police officer.
On review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party and grant to it all reasonable inferences
fairly deducible therefrom. 	See Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 255 Va.
516, 521, 499 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1998). 	"The judgment of a trial
court sitting without a jury is entitled to the same weight as a
jury verdict, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly
wrong or without evidence to support it." 	Beck v. Commonwealth,
2 Va. App. 170, 172, 342 S.E.2d 642, 643 (1986) (citation
omitted). 	"The credibility of the witnesses and the weight
accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who
has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is
presented." 	Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455
S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995) (citations omitted). 	"In its role of
judging witness credibility, the fact finder is entitled to
disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to
conclude that the accused is lying to conceal his guilt." 	Marable
v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235
(1998) (citation omitted).

- 4 -
To sustain a conviction under Code § 18.2-57(C), the
Commonwealth must prove that Wright assaulted an individual that
he knew or had reason to know was a police officer engaged in the
performance of his duties.
Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, proved that Hutt, while in uniform and on patrol,
was investigating what she perceived to be an escalating public
argument between Wright and his girlfriend. 	During Hutt's
encounter with Wright, Wright became belligerent and verbally
abusive. 	Hutt called for assistance, informed Wright that he was
under arrest, and proceeded to handcuff Wright. 	Brown, responding
to Hutt's request for assistance, approached Wright from the rear
and grabbed Wright's left arm to assist Hutt in handcuffing
Wright. 	Wright resisted the officers' attempt to arrest him and
tackled Officer Brown to the ground.
At the time Wright assaulted Brown, Wright was told that he
was under arrest and he was in the process of being handcuffed.
Although Wright testified that he was not aware that Brown was a
police officer, he was aware that a number of other police
officers had gathered and were present at the scene. 	Brown was in
uniform and stood only inches from Wright when he was being
handcuffed. 	The fact finder reasonably could have inferred that
Wright was aware that the individual handcuffing his left arm
while Officer Hutt was handcuffing his right arm was a police

- 5 -
officer. 	Three officers testified that Wright "grabbed" Brown and
"tackled" him to the ground. 	Although the officers' versions of
the events differ in some respect as to where Wright grabbed
Brown, the weight to be accorded their testimony is a matter
solely for the fact finder who can accept or reject the testimony
in whole or in part. 	See generally Bridgeman v. Commonwealth,
3 Va. App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986). 	The trial court,
as fact finder, could accept that version of the events which
shows that Wright knew that he was tackling a police officer. 	The
fact finder could, under the circumstances, reject Wright's
self-serving statements that he was unaware that Brown was a
police officer and that they accidentally fell to the ground.
Accordingly, we find that the evidence is sufficient to
support Wright's conviction. 	We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.