Jamaal Denzel Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia

• Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
• Decided: October 24, 2023
• Docket: 1009221
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA UNPUBLISHED

Present: Judges Malveaux, Ortiz and Friedman Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

JAMAAL DENZEL BROWN MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1009-22-1 JUDGE FRANK K. FRIEDMAN OCTOBER 24, 2023 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Tasha D. Scott, Judge

Tiffany T. Crawford (Morris, Crawford & Currin, P.C., on brief), for appellant.

David A. Mick, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Following a jury trial, the trial court convicted Jamaal Denzel Brown of malicious

wounding and using a firearm in the commission of a felony. Brown challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence to sustain his convictions. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

“In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party [below].” Poole v. Commonwealth,

73 Va. App. 357, 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)). In

doing so, we discard any of Brown’s conflicting evidence, and regard as true all credible evidence

favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from that

evidence. Gerald, 295 Va. at 473.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). In the early morning hours of July 12, 2020, Jozzmyn Colbert (Colbert) was with Brown,

with whom she was involved in a relationship. They tried to visit a bar with Colbert’s twin sister,

Jazzmyn Colbert (Jazzmyn), and one of Brown’s friends, but could not because Brown did not have

identification.1 Colbert and Brown then went to a 7-Eleven store in her car. Jazzmyn followed in

her own car.

While Brown was in the store paying for gas, Colbert encountered some male acquaintances

from high school. Colbert and Jazzmyn talked to the men and exchanged hugs. One of the men

flirted with Colbert. When Brown returned outside, he questioned why Colbert was talking to the

men and told her that he was going to shoot them. Jazzmyn heard Brown say that he was going to

“shoot the 7-Eleven up.” Colbert said that she was taking Brown home. Colbert and Brown got in

her car, drove a short distance around the corner, and stopped. Jazzmyn drove her vehicle to the

same location.

Brown shot a gun out of the car window. Colbert and Brown argued; she said she did not

like “feeling unsafe” and being in “these type[s] of situations.” She said that she no longer

“want[ed] to deal with him.” Colbert went to Jazzmyn’s car and told her that Brown was “acting

crazy” and they needed to get away from him. Jazzmyn told Colbert to follow her and drove off.

Colbert returned to her car.

Brown, who was upset, was standing in the doorway of the passenger side of Colbert’s car

with his foot partly in the car. Jazzmyn had stopped her car after moving only a short distance, and

she looked down the street toward Colbert’s vehicle. Before Colbert could drive away, Brown shot

at her with a handgun more than once. The shots hit Colbert in both legs. From her car, Jazzmyn

1 Colbert admitted that she had a few drinks of alcohol and “some molly” that night. “Molly” is another name for “ecstasy.” -2- heard the sound of numerous gunshots, then saw Colbert speed away from Brown. Colbert testified

that she “didn’t want to die,” so she drove off.

Colbert drove directly to a hospital emergency room. After receiving medical assistance for

her injuries, Colbert was hospitalized for two days. Colbert received 38 staples in her left leg to

treat her injury, and a bullet remained lodged in her leg. At the time of trial, Colbert still

experienced pain in her right leg and had difficulty walking up stairs or long distances. Colbert

identified Brown to the police as the person who shot her.

The police collected five cartridge casings from the scene of the shooting. All of them were

fired from the same gun.

ANALYSIS

Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions for malicious

wounding and using a firearm in the commission of a felony. “On review of the sufficiency of

the evidence, ‘the judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless

it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Ingram v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App.

59, 76 (2021) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “The question on

appeal, is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Yoder v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 180, 182 (2019)).

“If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted to

substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the

finder of fact at the trial.’” Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018) (quoting

Banks v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 273, 288 (2017)).

Brown contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was the person who shot

Colbert because there was no evidence to corroborate the testimony of Colbert and Jazzmyn. It

is well established, however, that “the testimony of a single witness, if found credible by the

-3- [fact finder] and not found inherently incredible by this Court, is sufficient to support a

conviction.” McCary v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 27, 41 (2001).

“The fact finder, who has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, has the sole

responsibility to determine their credibility, the weight to be given their testimony, and the

inferences to be drawn from proven facts.” Rams v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 12, 26-27

(2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 94, 105 (2010)). “When ‘credibility issues

have been resolved by the [fact finder] in favor of the Commonwealth, those findings will not be

disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong.’” Towler v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 284, 291

(2011) (quoting Corvin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 296, 299 (1991)). Any “[p]otential

inconsistencies in testimony are resolved by the fact finder.” Id. at 292. Such conflicts are not

revisited on appeal “unless ‘the evidence is such that reasonable [persons], after weighing the

evidence and drawing all just inferences therefrom, could reach but one conclusion.’” Id.

(alteration in original) (quoting Molina v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 338, 369, aff’d, 272 Va.

666 (2006)). The fact finder “[i]s free to believe or disbelieve, in part or in whole, the testimony

of any witness.” Bazemore v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 203, 213 (2004) (en banc).

Considering Colbert’s and Jazzmyn’s testimony together, notwithstanding any possible

inconsistency between them, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt

that Brown was the person who shot Colbert. Before the shooting, Colbert was in a relationship

with Brown, and they were together in the early morning hours of July 12, 2020. Brown became

jealous and aggressive when he saw her interacting with male acquaintances at the 7-Eleven store.

Brown and Colbert drove away together in her car alone. After proceeding a short distance to

another location, Brown fired a gun out of the car. Colbert and Brown argued, and Brown began to

exit the car. Before leaving, however, he fired the gun at Colbert inside the car. Jazzmyn, who had

stopped a short distance away, heard the gunshots. Immediately after being shot in the legs, Colbert

-4- sped away to the hospital. To the police, Colbert positively identified Brown as the person who shot

her. The evidence plainly was sufficient to prove that Brown was the perpetrator and that he was

guilty of malicious wounding and using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err and we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

-5-