Rhodean Harolquan Rhodes-Hamlin v. Commonwealth of Virginia

• Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 1299241
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges O’Brien, Causey and Frucci

RHODEAN HAROLQUAN RHODES-HAMLIN UNPUBLISHED

MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 1299-24-1 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 9, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Everett A. Martin, Jr., Judge

(Trevor Jared Robinson, on brief), for appellant.

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Matthew J. Beyrau, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

A jury convicted Rhodean Harolquan Rhodes-Hamlin of second-degree murder,

aggravated malicious wounding, and using a firearm to commit those felonies. By final order

entered on August 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced him to a total of 38 years of incarceration

with 13 years suspended. On appeal, Rhodes-Hamlin contends that the trial court erred in

denying his motion to strike because he presented “undeniable evidence of self-defense.” For

the following reasons, we affirm.1

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). 1 Having examined the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is unnecessary because “the dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided, and the appellant has not argued that the case law should be overturned, extended, modified, or reversed.” See Code § 17.1-403(ii)(b); Rule 5A:27(b). BACKGROUND2

The Commonwealth charged Rhodes-Hamlin with the first-degree murder of Sidney Parker,

aggravated malicious wounding of Parker’s mother Toya, and two counts of using a firearm in the

commission of a felony. The evidence at trial established that, in July 2022, Toya lived in an

apartment on Mangrove Avenue in Norfolk with her daughter Shiree Tyson and several other

family members. On July 19, 2022, Parker also stayed at the apartment.

That evening, Parker left the apartment. Sometime later, Toya and Tyson heard a

commotion outside. Toya looked out the window and saw Parker’s girlfriend Latosha Edmonds3

arguing with Rhodes-Hamlin in the parking lot. Toya then saw Rhodes-Hamlin push Edmonds

to the ground.

Toya then went outside; Tyson followed several minutes later. Parker then arrived in the

parking lot and told Rhodes-Hamlin that he should not have pushed Edmonds “down like that.”

Parker and Rhodes-Hamlin argued and got “in each other’s face[s].” Parker then pushed

Rhodes-Hamlin away.

After Parker shoved Rhodes-Hamlin, Rhodes-Hamlin drew a firearm from his waistband

and rapidly fired ten shots. Multiple rounds struck Parker, and he fell to the ground, bleeding

profusely. Toya and Tyson ran when they heard the shots, but a bullet hit Toya near her left

elbow. Toya collapsed in the apartment doorway. Rhodes-Hamlin fled the scene.

2 On appeal, “we review the evidence in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth.” Clanton v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 561, 564 (2009) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514 (2003)). That principle requires us to “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 that may be drawn therefrom.” Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 254 (2003) (en banc) (quoting Watkins v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 335, 348 (1998)). 3 Edmonds is referred to as “Latasha,” “Tasha,” and “Tosha” throughout the transcript. -2- Police officers and other emergency personnel quickly responded. Despite the efforts of

the first responders, Parker died from his injuries. Toya was transported to the hospital, where

she underwent surgery to repair fractures in her arm. The bullet remained in her arm, and at the

time of trial, Toya continued to experience pain in, and have limited use of, her left arm.

Police investigators recovered ten nine-millimeter cartridge casings from the scene.

Forensic analysis determined that all ten casings were fired from the same firearm. The medical

examiner testified that Parker was shot six times—in the chest, lung, left side, abdomen, hip, and

left hand. She determined that both the shot to the chest and the shot to the lung were fatal. She

did not observe any bruising on Parker’s face.

Detective Peter Kolb located several surveillance cameras that recorded footage relevant

to the shooting. Although no camera captured the shooting on video, a camera a block away

from the scene recorded clear audio of the ten gunshots at 10:22 p.m. on July 19, 2022.

Rhodes-Hamlin walked past this camera about a minute later.

Detective Kolb arrested Rhodes-Hamlin on July 26, 2022. He did not observe any visible

injuries on Rhodes-Hamlin at that time. Rhodes-Hamlin did not contact the police in the week

between the shooting and his arrest.

Rhodes-Hamlin testified that he arrived at the apartment complex on Mangrove Avenue

sometime on the afternoon of the shooting. He asserted that he and Parker were friends, that he

saw him “[l]ike every day,” and that they regularly socialized in the apartment complex parking

lot.

According to Rhodes-Hamlin’s testimony, later that night, he was in the apartment

building doorway when he heard Parker and Edmonds arguing near the rear of the building.

Parker then left and Edmonds—who Rhodes-Hamlin claimed was intoxicated—approached and

began verbally abusing him and “cussing [him] out.” Rhodes-Hamlin alleged that this verbal

-3- abuse lasted for approximately 30 minutes. He claimed that although Edmonds hit him in the

chest and head, he did not strike her in return. He said that Edmonds fell because she was drunk,

not because he pushed her. According to Rhodes-Hamlin, Parker was not there when Edmonds

fell.

Parker then returned to the parking lot carrying a beer. Parker confronted

Rhodes-Hamlin aggressively and told Rhodes-Hamlin that he did not have to push Edmonds.

Parker appeared to walk toward the apartment building but “he ran up and ended up sneaking up

on me, punching me in [the] eye.” Parker and Rhodes-Hamlin then “scuffle[d].”

During the scuffle, Parker and Rhodes-Hamlin separated. According to Rhodes-Hamlin,

Parker then brought his hand to his hip. Although Rhodes-Hamlin had not seen Parker with a

firearm that evening, he knew that Parker typically carried a gun, as Rhodes-Hamlin himself did.

Rhodes-Hamlin testified that he believed that Parker was “going to shoot” him. Therefore,

Rhodes-Hamlin claimed he grabbed his firearm, “stumbled back,” and “just fired.” He stated

that he did not aim at Toya, and did not know how many shots he fired because he “wasn’t

thinking about it.”4 He confirmed that his firearm was a nine-millimeter gun.

On cross-examination, Rhodes-Hamlin acknowledged that when the police interviewed

him after his arrest, he initially denied being present during the shooting and stated that he only

owned a .22 caliber firearm. He also offered to tell the police “who did it.”

At the close of all the evidence, Rhodes-Hamlin renewed his motion to strike, arguing

that “the defense has substantiated self-defense.” The trial court denied the motion, explaining

that the merits of Rhodes-Hamlin’s self-defense claim was a question for the jury. The trial

Rhodes-Hamlin’s friend Tamara Pettaway testified that she witnessed Edmonds harass 4

Rhodes-Hamlin and then fall from drunkenness. Pettaway said that Parker accused Rhodes-Hamlin of pushing Edmonds and punched Rhodes-Hamlin. Pettaway saw Parker and Rhodes-Hamlin scuffling for several minutes. Pettaway testified that she did not “actually see” Rhodes-Hamlin shoot Parker because “it happened so fast.” -4- court instructed the jury on both justifiable and excusable self-defense. The jury convicted

Rhodes-Hamlin of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, as well as aggravated

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

Rhodes-Hamlin now appeals, contending that the trial court should have granted his motion to

strike because he proved that he acted in self-defense.

ANALYSIS

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is

presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to

support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original)

(quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does

not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204,

228 (2018)). “Rather, the relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v.

Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193

(2009)). “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, 72 Va. App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v.

Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).

“Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of murder, and in making such a plea,

a ‘defendant implicitly admits the killing was intentional and assumes the burden of introducing

evidence of justification or excuse that raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.’”

Jones v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 70, 86 (2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va.

724, 729 (2001)). “‘Whether an accused’ meets this threshold ‘is a question of fact.’”

-5- Washington v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 606, 617 (2022) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth,

17 Va. App. 68, 71 (1993)).

“In order to establish self-defense, a defendant must show that he . . . ‘reasonably

believed that [he] was in danger of serious bodily harm or death.’” Id. (alterations in original)

(quoting Jones, 71 Va. App. at 86). He must also establish “‘that he was in imminent danger of

harm’ by showing ‘an overt act or other circumstance that affords an immediate threat to

safety.’” Jones, 71 Va. App. at 86 (quoting Carter v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 537, 544 (2017)).

“An overt act is an act suggesting present danger which ‘afford[s] a reasonable ground for

believing there is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying

such design into immediate execution.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Sands, 262 Va. at

729). But “‘[b]are fear that a person intends to inflict serious bodily injury on the accused,

however well-grounded,’ is insufficient” to support a claim of self-defense. Id. (quoting

Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 975 (1977)).

Virginia law recognizes two forms of self-defense: “‘self-defense without fault,’ referred

to as justifiable self-defense, and ‘self-defense with fault,’ known as excusable self-defense.”

Washington, 75 Va. App. at 617 (quoting Bell v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 479, 487 (2016)).

Justifiable self-defense “occurs when the accused is ‘without any fault on his part in provoking

or bringing on the difficulty.’” Id. (quoting Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 199 (2010)).

By contrast, excusable self-defense

occurs when the accused is at “some fault in the first instance in provoking or bringing on the difficulty” but, when attacked, he “retreats as far as possible, announces his desire for peace,” and acts “from a reasonably apparent necessity to preserve his own life or save himself from great bodily harm.”

Id. (quoting Bell, 66 Va. App. at 487). Both types of self-defense constitute a complete defense.

-6- Rhodes-Hamlin contends that he “reasonably feared for his safety” after he “avoid[ed] a

confrontation with [Edmonds], and then being accosted and assaulted by Sidney.” Further,

Rhodes-Hamlin claims he saw Parker “reaching for a gun,” “was absolutely certain that [Parker]

was armed,” and “properly defended himself.”

We disagree. Rhodes-Hamlin’s argument credits his own testimony and frames the

evidence in the light most favorable to him. But the jury was “under no obligation to accept” his

account. Covil v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 692, 696 (2004). Moreover, on appeal we must view

“the evidence in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth.” Clanton v. Commonwealth,

53 Va. App. 561, 564 (2009) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514

(2003)). Toya testified that she saw Rhodes-Hamlin push Edmonds down. Toya and Tyson both

testified that Parker shoved Rhodes-Hamlin. In response, Rhodes-Hamlin drew his firearm and

rapidly fired ten shots, hitting Parker—who was unarmed—six times and Toya once.

A jury that credited this testimony was entitled to reject Rhodes-Hamlin’s assertion that

he reasonably believed that he faced imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm because

Parker was about to shoot him. Further, if the jury found that Rhodes-Hamlin bore some degree

of fault in provoking the altercation, there was no evidence that Rhodes-Hamlin retreated as far

as he safely could or made known his desire for peace before he used deadly force. See

Washington, 75 Va. App. at 617.

In sum, the credibility of the witnesses and the merits of Rhodes-Hamlin’s self-defense

claim were questions for the jury. As it was entitled to do, the jury concluded that

Rhodes-Hamlin did not act in self-defense, and there is no basis for this Court to disturb that

determination.

-7- CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Affirmed.

-8-