COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges AtLee, Friedman and Callins UNPUBLISHED
Argued by videoconference
MARTIQUE LAQUAN HOLLAND MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1711-24-3 JUDGE DOMINIQUE A. CALLINS DECEMBER 30, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE James J. Reynolds, Judge
James C. Martin (Martin & Martin Law Firm, on brief), for appellant.
Tanner M. Russo, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Martique Laquan Holland was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the
commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted violent felon. Holland
appeals the first-degree murder conviction, arguing the evidence was insufficient to establish
premeditation. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). BACKGROUND1
Holland, his girlfriend “TT,” and his nephew A.H.2 were “[s]moking and drinking” in
front of “the M building” at Woodside Apartments when Marcus Hairston called TT on her
phone. Hairston and Holland had “beef” with each other because of several previous
altercations. On the phone call, Hairston asked TT where Holland was and said that he heard
Holland and A.H. were seeking to rob Hairston. Hairston told TT that he was “ready to come
over their [sic] b**** and . . . come shoot that b**** up pistol whip.” Because TT answered the
call “on speaker,” Holland heard Hairston’s threats. Holland responded to Hairston that “we
going to see about it.” Before ending the call, Hairston told Holland, “I ain’t going to even come
over there messing with y’all right now.”
A few minutes later, Hairston called back and indicated he would come over, after all, to
“shoot the apartment up.” In response, Holland and A.H. promised Hairston, “[c]ome through
here again you ain’t going to live to see another day.”
Following the phone call, Holland and A.H. went to get their guns. The two then entered
an abandoned apartment on the second floor of the M building. They observed Hairston
approach TT in front of the M building. Although at one point Hairston pulled out a gun and
waved it in TT’s direction, “he put it back” and was no longer presenting the gun. Hairston did
not fire, nor did he look up in the direction of the abandoned apartment.
1 We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in this case, discarding Holland’s conflicting evidence and regarding as true the credible evidence of the Commonwealth and all fair inferences drawn therefrom. Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84, 96-97 (2023). “‘This deferential principle’ applies to issues of witness credibility and the factfinder’s interpretation of all the evidence.” Reed v. Commonwealth, 85 Va. App. 196, 201 n.1 (2025) (quoting Barney, 302 Va. at 97). 2 We use initials, instead of his name, to protect the privacy of the minor child. See Grimaldo v. Commonwealth, 82 Va. App. 304, 312 n.3 (2024). -2- After Hairston put his gun away, Holland and A.H. began shooting down on Hairston
from the second floor. A.H. testified that at no point while he and Holland shot down at Hairston
did Hairston return fire. A.H. continued shooting until he could no longer see Hairston; Holland
shot at least three more times after A.H. stopped, until his firearm emptied. The two then fled
the scene. When police arrived on the scene, they found Hairston deceased, near the M building,
with a gun between his arm and body.
Although they initially fled to a hotel at the border of Virginia and North Carolina, police
arrested Holland and A.H. the next day at the home of TT’s mother in Virginia. Upon execution
of a search warrant, police discovered a disassembled firearm “covered in some sort of liquid” in
the rear bedroom of the residence. The slide had been removed from the gun, and the barrel had
been removed from the slide, but all parts were found “grouped together” underneath a pillow.
When later interrogated by the police, A.H. denied being present at the M building on the
evening of the shooting. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced recordings of jail call
conversations wherein Holland tells several people he was not present on the night of the
shooting and advises his mother to tell A.H. to “keep on with that incompetency. We don’t need
him flipping on me.”
At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Holland moved to strike. He argued the
evidence was insufficient to establish premeditation and asked the court to reduce the charge to
second-degree murder. The trial court denied his motion.
Holland then testified in his own defense. Holland admitted that he used the gun in the
shooting of Hairston and that he took it apart to avoid the police detection. He admitted to lying
to police about his presence on the scene of the shooting because he “didn’t know if [he] could
trust the police.” Holland also admitted that he shot at Hairston 15 times, emptying his firearm,
and that the animus between he and Hairston began because Hairston “shut the door in
-3- [Holland’s] face.” Holland acknowledged that, on the evening of the shooting, Hairston had not
“pulled a gun” on him. Yet Holland maintained that he shot in self-defense and that he did not
aim to shoot anyone in particular.
At the close of all the evidence, Holland renewed his motion to strike on the same
grounds. The trial court again denied his motion. Thereafter, the jury found Holland guilty of
first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm
by a convicted violent felon. Holland appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Holland’s sole argument is that the evidence was insufficient to prove
premeditation for his first-degree murder conviction.3 We disagree.
“When an appellate court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal
conviction, its role is a limited one.” Commonwealth v. Garrick, 303 Va. 176, 182 (2024). “The
issue of whether a killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated is a question of fact that we will
not disturb on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Aldridge v.
Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 618, 655 (2004) (citation omitted). Thus, the only relevant question
for this Court “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84, 97 (2023) (quoting Sullivan v.
Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)). “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.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72
Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (quoting Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).
3 During oral argument, Holland conceded he challenges only his first-degree murder conviction. Thus, we address the sufficiency of the evidence to support only that conviction. -4- First-degree murder is “[m]urder . . . by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.”
Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 480, 485 (1989) (alterations in original) (quoting Code
§ 18.2-32). “To premeditate means to adopt a specific intent to kill, and that is what distinguishes
first and second[-]degree murder.” Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges AtLee, Friedman and Callins UNPUBLISHED
Argued by videoconference
MARTIQUE LAQUAN HOLLAND MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1711-24-3 JUDGE DOMINIQUE A. CALLINS DECEMBER 30, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE James J. Reynolds, Judge
James C. Martin (Martin & Martin Law Firm, on brief), for appellant.
Tanner M. Russo, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Martique Laquan Holland was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the
commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted violent felon. Holland
appeals the first-degree murder conviction, arguing the evidence was insufficient to establish
premeditation. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). BACKGROUND1
Holland, his girlfriend “TT,” and his nephew A.H.2 were “[s]moking and drinking” in
front of “the M building” at Woodside Apartments when Marcus Hairston called TT on her
phone. Hairston and Holland had “beef” with each other because of several previous
altercations. On the phone call, Hairston asked TT where Holland was and said that he heard
Holland and A.H. were seeking to rob Hairston. Hairston told TT that he was “ready to come
over their [sic] b**** and . . . come shoot that b**** up pistol whip.” Because TT answered the
call “on speaker,” Holland heard Hairston’s threats. Holland responded to Hairston that “we
going to see about it.” Before ending the call, Hairston told Holland, “I ain’t going to even come
over there messing with y’all right now.”
A few minutes later, Hairston called back and indicated he would come over, after all, to
“shoot the apartment up.” In response, Holland and A.H. promised Hairston, “[c]ome through
here again you ain’t going to live to see another day.”
Following the phone call, Holland and A.H. went to get their guns. The two then entered
an abandoned apartment on the second floor of the M building. They observed Hairston
approach TT in front of the M building. Although at one point Hairston pulled out a gun and
waved it in TT’s direction, “he put it back” and was no longer presenting the gun. Hairston did
not fire, nor did he look up in the direction of the abandoned apartment.
1 We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in this case, discarding Holland’s conflicting evidence and regarding as true the credible evidence of the Commonwealth and all fair inferences drawn therefrom. Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84, 96-97 (2023). “‘This deferential principle’ applies to issues of witness credibility and the factfinder’s interpretation of all the evidence.” Reed v. Commonwealth, 85 Va. App. 196, 201 n.1 (2025) (quoting Barney, 302 Va. at 97). 2 We use initials, instead of his name, to protect the privacy of the minor child. See Grimaldo v. Commonwealth, 82 Va. App. 304, 312 n.3 (2024). -2- After Hairston put his gun away, Holland and A.H. began shooting down on Hairston
from the second floor. A.H. testified that at no point while he and Holland shot down at Hairston
did Hairston return fire. A.H. continued shooting until he could no longer see Hairston; Holland
shot at least three more times after A.H. stopped, until his firearm emptied. The two then fled
the scene. When police arrived on the scene, they found Hairston deceased, near the M building,
with a gun between his arm and body.
Although they initially fled to a hotel at the border of Virginia and North Carolina, police
arrested Holland and A.H. the next day at the home of TT’s mother in Virginia. Upon execution
of a search warrant, police discovered a disassembled firearm “covered in some sort of liquid” in
the rear bedroom of the residence. The slide had been removed from the gun, and the barrel had
been removed from the slide, but all parts were found “grouped together” underneath a pillow.
When later interrogated by the police, A.H. denied being present at the M building on the
evening of the shooting. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced recordings of jail call
conversations wherein Holland tells several people he was not present on the night of the
shooting and advises his mother to tell A.H. to “keep on with that incompetency. We don’t need
him flipping on me.”
At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Holland moved to strike. He argued the
evidence was insufficient to establish premeditation and asked the court to reduce the charge to
second-degree murder. The trial court denied his motion.
Holland then testified in his own defense. Holland admitted that he used the gun in the
shooting of Hairston and that he took it apart to avoid the police detection. He admitted to lying
to police about his presence on the scene of the shooting because he “didn’t know if [he] could
trust the police.” Holland also admitted that he shot at Hairston 15 times, emptying his firearm,
and that the animus between he and Hairston began because Hairston “shut the door in
-3- [Holland’s] face.” Holland acknowledged that, on the evening of the shooting, Hairston had not
“pulled a gun” on him. Yet Holland maintained that he shot in self-defense and that he did not
aim to shoot anyone in particular.
At the close of all the evidence, Holland renewed his motion to strike on the same
grounds. The trial court again denied his motion. Thereafter, the jury found Holland guilty of
first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm
by a convicted violent felon. Holland appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Holland’s sole argument is that the evidence was insufficient to prove
premeditation for his first-degree murder conviction.3 We disagree.
“When an appellate court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal
conviction, its role is a limited one.” Commonwealth v. Garrick, 303 Va. 176, 182 (2024). “The
issue of whether a killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated is a question of fact that we will
not disturb on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Aldridge v.
Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 618, 655 (2004) (citation omitted). Thus, the only relevant question
for this Court “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84, 97 (2023) (quoting Sullivan v.
Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)). “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.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72
Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (quoting Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).
3 During oral argument, Holland conceded he challenges only his first-degree murder conviction. Thus, we address the sufficiency of the evidence to support only that conviction. -4- First-degree murder is “[m]urder . . . by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.”
Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 480, 485 (1989) (alterations in original) (quoting Code
§ 18.2-32). “To premeditate means to adopt a specific intent to kill, and that is what distinguishes
first and second[-]degree murder.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 696, 700 (1980)).
“The intent to kill must come into existence at some time before the killing,” but “it need not exist
for any particular length of time.” Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 208 (2010) (quoting
Remington v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 333, 352 (2001)).
In deciding [whether premeditation and deliberation exist], the jury may properly consider the brutality of the attack, and whether more than one blow was struck, the disparity in size and strength between the defendant and the victim, the concealment of the victim’s body, and the defendant’s lack of remorse and efforts to avoid detection.
Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Epperly v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 214, 232 (1982)).
Additionally, “[w]hile motive is not an essential element of the crime, it is relevant and often most
persuasive upon the question of the actor’s intent.” Epperly, 224 Va. at 232. These Epperly factors
are not a comprehensive checklist to be ticked off, nor is one factor dispositive of premeditation to
the exclusion of all others. Id. (“While none of these factors might be sufficient standing alone, in
combination they are more than enough to support the jury’s finding that the killing of [the victim]
was not only malicious, but also willful, deliberate, and premeditated.”). Rather any, all, or some
combination of these factors may be considered by a factfinder in weighing the evidence for or
against conviction.
Here, the evidence sufficiently supports a finding of premeditation. First, Holland’s
conduct in firing at Hairston from an elevated vantage point—the second floor—until his firearm
was emptied constitutes a brutal attack. Holland argues that the shots were “not directed to any
particular person” and that Hairston also had a gun. However, A.H. testified—and Holland
admitted—that Hairston was not holding the gun when Holland fired at him 15 times. Further, both
-5- A.H. and Holland acknowledged that Holland had prior “beef” with Hairston and that they
promised Hairston that if he, “[came] through here again [he] ain’t going to live to see another
day.” The history and threats indicated Holland’s motive to kill Hairston. The jury was entitled
to judge the credibility of Holland’s contention that he did not specifically intend to shoot Hairston.
See Dalton v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 512, 525-26 (2015). Put simply, they were “entitled
to disbelieve [Holland’s] self-serving testimony” and conclude that he was “lying to conceal his
guilt.” Washington v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 606, 616 (2022) (quoting Flanagan v.
Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 702 (2011)).
Holland also attempted to avoid detection and displayed a lack of remorse. He fled the
scene to the border of Virginia and North Carolina. Ultimately, police found Holland hiding out
in his girlfriend’s mother’s residence. When they recovered the firearm used in the crime, it was
disassembled and “covered in some sort of liquid.” Holland admitted he placed the firearm in
that state to avoid police detection. He also admitted lying to the police about his presence at the
scene of the shooting. Holland’s jail calls also demonstrated his lack of remorse. In addition to
continuing to deny his role in the shooting, Holland asked his mother to tell A.H. to “keep on
with that incompetency” and advised that he didn’t “need [anyone] flipping on [him].” Thus, the
jury’s finding of premeditation was not plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
-6-