Brian Scott Newport v. Commonwealth

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedApril 19, 2005
Docket0798042
StatusUnpublished

This text of Brian Scott Newport v. Commonwealth (Brian Scott Newport v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brian Scott Newport v. Commonwealth, (Va. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Clements and McClanahan Argued at Richmond, Virginia

BRIAN SCOTT NEWPORT MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 0798-04-2 JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN APRIL 19, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Paul M. Peatross, Jr. Judge

Llezelle Agustin Dugger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Denise C. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Brian Scott Newport appeals a conviction for failure to return bailed property in violation

of Code § 18.2-117. Newport raises two issues: whether the trial court erred in: (1) applying

the statute’s prima facie presumption of larceny for failure to return a rental car within five days

after the due date; and (2) finding that Newport’s evidence was insufficient to rebut that

presumption. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court.

We note that the conviction order of January 14, 2004, erroneously recites that Newport

entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense. The transcript of the proceedings clearly

indicates that Newport entered a plea of not guilty. Therefore, we remand the matter to the trial

court for the sole purpose of correcting the clerical error in that order. See Tatum v.

Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 585, 592, 440 S.E.2d 133, 138 (1994); see also Code

§ 8.01-428(B).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. I. BACKGROUND

We view the evidence in the “light most favorable” to the Commonwealth, the party

prevailing in the trial court. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d 781, 786

(2003). “On appeal, this court must ‘discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of

the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth

and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.’” Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492, 498, 270

S.E.2d 755, 759 (1980) (citation omitted and emphasis in original). So viewed, the evidence

showed that on February 3, 1999, Newport rented a vehicle worth $9,000 from Rent-a-Wreck, a

car rental company located in Albemarle County. The rental agreement specified that the car

was to be returned to Rent-a-Wreck by 3:00 p.m. on February 8, 1999, and was to be driven no

more than one hundred and fifty miles per day.

The car was not returned by February 8th. During the rental return grace period,

Rent-a-Wreck telephoned and paged Newport several times. Newport returned the pages and

told Rent-a-Wreck that he was institutionalized at Western State Hospital and that the car could

be found in a parking lot on Fifth Street in Charlottesville. When Rent-a-Wreck representatives

went to that location, the car was not there.

Newport testified that he rented the car to follow his fiancée, whom he suspected was

cheating on him. When he discovered that she was, he attempted to commit suicide by carbon

monoxide poisoning. Although Newport could not remember the date of the suicide attempt, he

testified that he was admitted to the University of Virginia Hospital soon after that attempt.

Newport testified that shortly after leaving the hospital, he confronted his fiancée, which resulted

in his being involuntarily committed to Western State Hospital. His commitment began on

February 12, 1999, four days after the car was due back to Rent-a-Wreck, and ended on February

16, 1999.

-2- The car was recovered on February 14, 1999, when a Rent-a-Wreck employee happened

to drive by an apartment complex and notice the vehicle in the parking lot. The car was found

six days past the rental period and had been driven 1,932 miles, “well beyond the terms

permitted by the rental agreement.” The car also had body damage totaling $815.59.

II. ANALYSIS

Newport argues that the trial court erred in applying the prima facie presumption that

Newport had a fraudulent intent to commit larceny for failure to return the rental car to

Rent-a-Wreck. However, pursuant to the statute, the court shall apply the prima facie

presumption if the vehicle is not returned within five days of the return date required under the

contract. Code § 18.2-117 provides, in pertinent part:

If any person comes into the possession as bailee of any . . . vehicle . . . and fail[s] to return the same to the bailor, in accordance with the bailment agreement, he shall be deemed guilty of larceny thereof and receive the same punishment, according to the value of the thing stolen, prescribed for the punishment of the larceny of goods and chattels. The failure to return to the bailor such . . . vehicle . . . within five days from the time the bailee has agreed in writing to return the same shall be prima facie evidence of larceny by such bailee of such . . . vehicle . . . .

(Emphasis added). Newport also concedes that Code “§ 18.2-117 allows a prima facie

presumption of fraudulent intent if a rental vehicle was not returned within five days of its

agreed-upon return date.”

“Prima facie evidence is evidence which on its first appearance is sufficient to raise a

presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted.” Babbitt v. Miller, 192 Va.

372, 379-80, 64 S.E.2d 718, 722 (1951). The evidence showed that Newport executed a written

agreement to rent the car until February 8th. Code § 18.2-117, therefore, required the car to be

returned by February 13th. Because the car was not recovered until February 14th, the

-3- Commonwealth established that Newport failed to return the car within the five-day period.

Therefore, the trial court did not err in applying the presumption.

Newport argues that because his evidence showed that he was physically unable to return

the car within the five-day period, he sufficiently rebutted the presumption. “When addressing a

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we presume the judgment of the trial court to be

correct and reverse only if the trial court’s decision is plainly wrong or without evidence to

support it.” Seaton v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 739, 746, 595 S.E.2d 9, 12-13 (2004)

(internal quotations and citation omitted).

Newport’s evidence showed that because he was institutionalized at Western State

Hospital he could not physically return the vehicle from February 12th to February14th, when

the car was recovered. However, his evidence did not explain why he did not return the car

between February 8th and February 12th. He testified that, during that time period, he attempted

suicide, and, as a result, was hospitalized at the University of Virginia Hospital. However, he

provided no dates or documentation to verify that evidence. Furthermore, Newport told

Rent-a-Wreck that the car was parked in a lot on Fifth Street in Charlottesville. When

Rent-a-Wreck representatives attempted to recover the car from that location, it was not there. A

Rent-a-Wreck employee, by chance, spotted the car in a different location, and it was recovered

six days after the contract period had elapsed. Although Newport denied that he had fraudulent

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Hudson
578 S.E.2d 781 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2003)
Seaton v. Commonwealth
595 S.E.2d 9 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2004)
Marable v. Commonwealth
500 S.E.2d 233 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1998)
Moore v. Commonwealth
487 S.E.2d 864 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1997)
Harmon v. Elkay Mining Co.
500 S.E.2d 860 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1997)
Sandoval v. Commonwealth
455 S.E.2d 730 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1995)
Black v. Commonwealth
284 S.E.2d 608 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1981)
Tatum v. Commonwealth
440 S.E.2d 133 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1994)
Parks v. Commonwealth
270 S.E.2d 755 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1980)
Babbitt v. Miller
64 S.E.2d 718 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brian Scott Newport v. Commonwealth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-scott-newport-v-commonwealth-vactapp-2005.