COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Malveaux, Fulton and White Argued at Salem, Virginia
TAREE JEANETTA BETHEA MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 0227-24-3 JUDGE JUNIUS P. FULTON, III FEBRUARY 25, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRY COUNTY James R. McGarry, Judge
Brett P. Blobaum, Senior Appellate Attorney (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.
Robert D. Bauer, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Taree Jeanetta Bethea of grand larceny in
violation of Code § 18.2-103. By order of February 1, 2024, the trial court sentenced Bethea to
ten years’ incarceration, with eight years suspended. Bethea challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to prove the value of the stolen items. She also challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to identify her as the perpetrator. We find the evidence was sufficient to prove that the
value of the items exceeded the statutory threshold for grand larceny, and to identify her as the
perpetrator, and thus affirm the trial court’s judgment.
* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). BACKGROUND
“Consistent with the standard of review when a criminal appellant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence, we recite the evidence below ‘in the “light most favorable” to the
Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court.’” Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74
Va. App. 225, 231 (2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). This
standard “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 to be drawn therefrom.’” Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v.
Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)).
On December 14, 2020, after learning of a “large push out [theft] of merchandise” from
the Martinsville Lowes store that occurred on December 7, 2020, Brian Hall, a Lowes asset
protection employee, viewed security camera footage and reported the theft to law enforcement.
On December 12, 2020, Will Lawson, a Lowes senior asset protection employee, reported to law
enforcement that two women, who he believed were responsible for multiple shoplifting
incidents, were at the Wytheville Lowes store in a blue Dodge pickup truck. Wytheville Police
Officer Zack Taylor later conducted a traffic stop of a blue Dodge pickup truck matching the
description Lawson had given. Officer Taylor heard alarms coming from the truck’s bed and
ordered Bethea and Adrienne Johnson, the only occupants, to exit the truck. He then observed
stolen DeWalt tools in the bed.
Wytheville Police Officer Umberger arrived at the scene and found six DeWalt tool kits
with activated “security alarm tags” in the truck’s bed, plus a DeWalt tool kit, a Bosch tool kit, a
blue wig, and some of Johnson’s belongings in the rear of the cab. Bethea claimed that she had
not stolen anything that day but admitted being with Johnson during the theft and having
-2- shoplifted with Johnson before in North Carolina. Bethea and Johnson were arrested for the
December 12, 2020 thefts.
A grand jury subsequently indicted Bethea for felony shoplifting concerning the
December 7, 2020 thefts. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence security camera
footage of the Martinsville Lowes store from December 7, 2020. The footage depicts two
women entering the store, one following closely behind the other, each pushing a shopping cart
and proceeding to the tool department after going in different directions. One woman had on a
long-sleeve pink shirt, surgical-type mask, and a long blue wig under a dark cap, and the other
was wearing blue jeans and a dark hooded shirt. After loading their carts with DeWalt tools, the
women pushed the carts past checkout registers and exited the store. Once outside, the women
loaded the tools into the bed of a red pickup truck, which an unidentified person drove away,
followed by the two women in another vehicle.
At trial, Hall identified Bethea as the woman wearing a pink long-sleeve shirt, mask, and
blue wig in the December 7, 2020 footage. He identified Johnson as the other woman depicted
in the video. Hall also described security camera video that depicted Bethea, who wore a “pink
hoodie” and had “blue hair,” lifting a “security gate” in the tool department and “load[ing] up the
shopping cart.”1 The Commonwealth asked if Hall knew “the value of the items that they took,”
and Hall replied that the “[g]rand total was over [$3,000] if I remember correctly.” Bethea asked
if Hall knew of a “ring of young ladies” stealing tools and other construction materials from
Lowes stores, which Hall did, and how many of those women Hall had identified. Hall replied
1 Hall testified that Lowes had given that video to the Commonwealth, but by the time of trial, the video file was corrupted and unplayable. -3- that he had identified only Bethea and Johnson.2 Bethea asked if Hall had heard the name
“Jamice Lewis”; Hall had not. Hall also identified Bethea in still-frame photographs taken from
security camera footage from the three incidents.
Lawson testified that after the December 12, 2020 incident, he reviewed security camera
video from a December 8, 2020 theft at the Wytheville store. The Commonwealth introduced
into evidence security camera footage from both incidents. The footage from December 8, 2020,
depicts two women walking in the store’s lumber entrance, one wearing a long blue wig under a
light-colored cap, surgical-type mask, light-blue jacket with various torn areas in the fabric, and
dark pants, and the other wearing a dark cap, mask, dark-blue jacket, and blue jeans. The
footage depicts them retrieving empty shopping carts and later pushing carts loaded with boxed
DeWalt tools and other items to the exit without stopping at a register. Lawson identified Bethea
as the woman who wore the blue wig and Johnson as the other woman.
The December 12, 2020 security camera footage depicts two women entering the store’s
lumber entrance, one wearing a light-blue jacket with tears in the fabric. Lawson identified
Bethea as the woman in the light-blue jacket, which he believed was the same one she wore in
the December 8, 2020 incident. He identified the other woman as Johnson. Bethea conceded
that she had pleaded guilty in connection with the December 12, 2020 theft and was depicted in
the footage from that incident.3
2 Bethea asked whether Johnson had pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the December 7, 2020 incident, and Hall confirmed that she had. He had not spoken with Johnson about the theft or the identity of anyone who had been with her. 3 Bethea made these concessions while objecting to the admission of the December 8, 2020 footage because charges stemming from that incident had not been adjudicated. According to Lawson, Bethea was charged with theft for the December 8, 2020 incident but the charge was later nolle prossed. -4- Lawson testified that he was aware of dozens of thefts of DeWalt tools by women. He
knew that Bethea had been convicted of one theft and did not know how many times Johnson
had been convicted. He admitted that women other than Johnson and Bethea had been convicted
for some of those thefts and that some of those women had “the same shape body and build” as
Bethea. Lawson acknowledged that he was aware of “many different” vehicles used by persons
who were involved in thefts from Lowes stores.
Officer Umberger testified that although he was aware of other thefts of DeWalt tools
from Lowes stores perpetrated by women, he did not know of any women other than Johnson
who had been convicted of those thefts. The Commonwealth introduced into evidence the blue
wig that had been recovered from the blue pickup truck on December 12, 2020. Officer
Umberger testified that while he was talking to Bethea outside the truck, she asked if she could
have the wig back.
After the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Bethea moved to strike the evidence. She
argued that the evidence did not prove that she, rather than another woman of similar appearance
and body type, was the culprit in the December 7, 2020 theft. She emphasized the evidence that
multiple vehicles were involved in the many thefts that had occurred and that the December 7,
2020 footage did not depict a blue wig.
After argument by counsel, the trial court found that Hall had identified Bethea in the
December 7, 2020 security camera footage and testified that she had blue hair in another video
depicting her lifting a security gate in the tool section. Accordingly, the trial court overruled the
motion to strike.
Bethea testified that she was in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on December 7, 2020,
performing a “laser teeth whitening” procedure for a client, Tamara Townsman. She asserted
that the appointment was at 3:00 p.m. for an hour-long session and that Townsman “probably left
-5- about 4:15.” Bethea claimed to have a “cash app” receipt for payment at 4:15 p.m. on December
7, 2020, from Townsman; she explained Townsman’s absence at trial by stating that she had
been “going to radiation” treatment for cancer. Bethea testified that she had an Instagram page
for her teeth whitening business.4 Bethea denied being in Martinsville on December 7, 2020, and
claimed instead that it was a woman named “Janece Lewis” depicted in the security camera
footage. She did not know if Lewis had been charged or convicted of any thefts.
Bethea admitted that she was with Johnson on December 12, 2020, in Wytheville, but
asserted that her only role that day was to drive Johnson to “get some DeWalt tools,” not to steal
anything herself; she would receive payment based on how successful Johnson was. Bethea
claimed that she knew of “[q]uite a few” other young women that stole tools from Lowes and
that about 12 of them had been charged with theft. She also claimed that the tools were stolen so
they could be sold but denied knowing how much they were worth.
Bethea admitted that she had been convicted of more than one felony, but did not know
how many, and “[q]uite a few” misdemeanors that involved lying, cheating, or stealing. She also
admitted that she wore her own clothes on December 12, 2020, and confirmed that she was
depicted in the camera footage from that day wearing a light-blue jacket with torn areas in its
fabric. Bethea denied asking Officer Umberger about the blue wig and denied that it was hers;
she claimed it was Johnson who had mentioned the wig.
After Bethea presented her evidence, the Commonwealth recalled Officer Umberger in
rebuttal. He acknowledged that he had not put in his report of the incident anything about
Bethea’s request for the wig or her statement about its cost, but testified that he was certain that
Bethea, not Johnson, asked about the wig, she “wanted her wig back,” and that she had told him
it cost over $300.
4 Bethea did not offer the receipt or Instagram page for admission into evidence. -6- After the close of all the evidence, Bethea argued that the evidence did not prove that she
was involved in the December 7, 2020 thefts. She emphasized that “dozens of thefts at Lowes
stores” had been perpetrated by “multiple” women using the same modus operandi and “multiple
vehicles.” Bethea highlighted Lawson’s testimony that many persons had committed thefts of
tools from Lowes and her own testimony that she was in North Carolina on December 7, 2020.
She also emphasized that her testimony was corroborated by the “cash app” receipt. Bethea
argued that her admission of guilt regarding the December 12, 2020 incident, even though she
did not take anything on that day, proved that she “takes responsibility for the things that she is
actually guilty of.” Therefore, she urged, the trial court should believe her denial of involvement
in the December 7, 2020 theft.
The Commonwealth contended that Bethea’s testimony was not credible given her
multiple felony and misdemeanor convictions. It emphasized that the December 7, December 8,
and December 12, 2020 thefts demonstrated a consistent pattern of two women entering the
store, taking DeWalt tools, and leaving without paying for the items. It also highlighted that
footage from the December 12, 2020 theft depicts Bethea wearing the same jacket as the
December 8, 2020 footage depicts being worn by one of the women and that Bethea admitted
that it was her jacket. Further, the December 7 and December 8 incidents both involved a red
truck. And, the Commonwealth argued, the woman it contended was Bethea displayed the same
mannerisms and physical characteristics and wore the same shoes and pants in the footage from
all three incidents.
After argument by counsel, the trial court found that Bethea’s convictions lessened her
credibility and the “cash app” receipt proved only when she received payment. The trial court
found that Bethea had conceded that she was in a ring that shoplifted from Lowes stores. The
trial court also found that the security camera footage from December 8, 2020, depicts the same
-7- woman as does the footage from December 12, 2020, “based on clothes, based on appearance,
based on walking and everything else.” Further, the women in the December 8, 2020 incident,
which the trial court found Bethea to have participated in, used a red truck, as did the women in
the December 7, 2020 incident. Those facts together raised a suspicion of guilt.
Additionally, however, the trial court found that the blue wig provided the crucial link
between Bethea and the theft on December 7, 2020. The trial court emphasized Hall’s testimony
about the video depicting a woman with blue hair lifting the security gate to access tools and that
while the shoes and pants Bethea wore might be commonly-worn, the video depicted a woman
wearing a “long blue wig,” which “is not common.” The trial court also emphasized Officer
Umberger’s certainty that it was Bethea who asked him about getting the wig back on December
12, 2020. Thus, the trial court found that the evidence proved that Bethea shoplifted tools from
the Martinsville Lowes on December 7, 2020. Accordingly, the trial court found Bethea guilty
of felony shoplifting in violation of Code § 18.2-103 and continued the case for preparation of a
presentence report.5
Over five months after trial, Bethea moved the trial court to set aside the conviction. She
argued that the evidence did not prove that she shoplifted on December 7, 2020. She emphasized
Lawson’s testimony that other women of similar “shape, body and build” had been convicted of
thefts of tools from Lowes and argued that the evidence did not prove that she, rather than one of
those women, was the perpetrator. She also contended that the blue wig did not prove her
identity.
5 The trial court found Bethea guilty on August 7, 2023. The sentencing hearing was held on November 29, 2023, and the trial court ordered restitution of $2,434 on that date. The sentencing order was not entered until February 1, 2024, after new counsel was appointed for the appeal (December 12, 2023), and a stay of entry of the final order was granted (December 20, 2023) until January 31, 2024, to permit new counsel to review the record and file post-trial motions. Bethea’s motion to set aside the verdict was denied by order entered February 2, 2024. -8- Bethea also argued that Hall’s testimony regarding the value of the stolen tools lacked
foundation and was insufficient to prove that the tools were worth more than $1,000. She
emphasized that Hall “provided no basis” for his testimony that the value was over $3,000, stated
that his valuation was subject to him remembering correctly, combined the value of tools taken
by both Bethea and Johnson, and did not identify the “type or number” of stolen items.
The trial court denied the motion to set aside the verdict. At the sentencing hearing, the
trial court sentenced Bethea to ten years’ incarceration, with eight years suspended. Bethea
appeals.
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)).
To sustain a conviction for grand larceny, the Commonwealth must prove that the value of
the stolen goods is more than $1,000. Code § 18.2-103; Otey v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 792,
-9- 800 (2020). Ordinarily, a lay witness who is not the property’s owner may testify about value if
“the witness possesses sufficient knowledge of the value of the property or has had ample
opportunity for forming a correct opinion as to value.” DiMaio v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App.
755, 764 (2005) (quoting Walls v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 480, 483 (1994)). Additionally, the fact
finder “may infer the stealing of the whole from the possession of part.” Henderson v.
Commonwealth, 215 Va. 811, 813 (1975) (quoting Johnson v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 452, 456
(1925)). Once the Commonwealth has met the basic threshold for admissibility, “any gaps in the
evidence are relevant to the trier of fact’s assessment of its weight rather than its admissibility.”
Church v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 107, 122-23 (2019). “The relevant value is the stolen
merchandise’s retail value at the time of the shoplifting.” Twine v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App.
224, 230 (2006).
Bethea argues that the trial court erred by finding that the items she took were worth more
than $1,000. She contends that Hall’s testimony about value was “speculative,” lacked foundation,
and was “couched in terms of” his ability to remember and did not identify how he arrived at the
value. Bethea emphasizes that Hall did not identify the value of the items Bethea took as distinct
from those taken by Johnson.
The only direct evidence the Commonwealth presented on value was Hall’s testimony
that the “[g]rand total” of the value of the tools taken in the December 7, 2020 incident was more
than $3,000, “if [he] remember[ed] correctly.”6 The Commonwealth did not ask, and Hall did
6 Bethea does not challenge the admission of Hall’s testimony on value; rather, her challenge is directed solely at its ability to support her conviction for grand larceny. An appellate court may structure a decision to assume without deciding a point “to resolve [an] appeal on the best and narrowest grounds.” McGinnis v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 489, 501 (2018); see Ali v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 16, 37 n.9 (2022) (“The mechanism of assuming without deciding a particular point in issue sometimes facilitates the appellate court’s achievement” of the goal of deciding an appeal on the best and narrowest grounds.”). Therefore, we assume without deciding that Hall’s testimony about the value of the stolen goods was admissible. - 10 - not explain, how he arrived at that figure. However, while there is no evidence that Hall scanned
the recovered items at a Lowes cash register to determine their value, looked at price tags on the
boxes, or used some other method to determine value, the evidence also showed Hall was
employed in a loss prevention and asset protection capacity by Lowes and that he had ample
opportunity to view the stolen items on the store’s video.7 Berry v. Commonwealth, No.
1212-09-02, slip op. at 6, 2010 Va. App. LEXIS 217, at *9 (May 25, 2010) (evidence that tow
dolly was “between $1,500 and $1,700” in conjunction with surveillance video evidence, was
sufficient to prove value). The videos he viewed and testified about showed Bethea and Johnson
entering the store, then entering the tool area where the DeWalt items were located, “lift[ing] up
the security gate, load[ing] up the shopping cart,” “and they exit . . . without even stopping at the
cash register,” and out into the parking lot where they quickly loaded the boxes into the bed of a
red truck and fled the area. The videos show several boxes of items in each cart as they leave the
store.8
Appellate courts defer significantly to a trial court’s interpretation of witness testimony
because the trial judge, having seen and heard the witnesses, is in a better position to evaluate the
evidence. Meade v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 796, 805 (2022). “We owe deference to the
trial court’s interpretation of all of the evidence, including video evidence.” Id. at 806. This
Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court’s factual findings unless plainly
wrong or without evidence to support them. Id. at 805. “Accordingly, [t]he credibility of a
witness, the weight accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts are
matters solely for the fact finder’s determination.” Id. at 806. Thus, the trial court concluded,
7 The store videos showed two full-sized shopping carts each with several boxes of DeWalt tools being pushed out the door to the parking lot. 8 From the video of Bethea and Johnson in the parking lot, it is possible to count that some nineteen or twenty boxes of tools were tossed into the bed of the red truck. - 11 - consistent with DiMaio, that Hall had “ample opportunity for forming a correct opinion as to
value,” and the trial court’s determination that Hall’s unrebutted opinion as to value as
corroborated by the videos was sufficient to establish the statutory minimum of $1,000 will not
be disturbed. Park v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 635, 655 (2022) (only slight corroboration of
the elements of the offense is required to establish the crime was committed beyond a reasonable
doubt).
Importantly, Bethea did not object to Hall’s testimony as to value at trial, did not
cross-examine Hall about value, and only raised this concern five months after trial in her motion
to reconsider.9 “An objection to the admissibility of evidence must be made when the evidence
is presented.” Kondaurov v. Kerdasha, 271 Va. 646, 654 (2006); see also Burns v. Bd. of
Supervisors, 227 Va. 354, 363 (1984) (holding that an appellant’s silence amounts to a waiver of
her objection to admissibility). “The objection comes too late if the objecting party remains
silent during its presentation and brings the matter to the court’s attention by a motion . . . made
after the opposing party has rested.” Id. Evidence presented without objection will be deemed to
be properly before the trial court. Wells v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 722, 729 (2016). Once
evidence is admitted, its weight is a matter for the fact finder to consider. Tipton v.
Commonwealth, 224 Va. 256, 261 (1982). “If incompetent or hearsay evidence is admitted
without objection thereto, the [fact finder] may properly consider it as evidence in the case.”
Talley v. Commonwealth, No. 1517-09-2, slip op. at 5, 2010 Va. App. LEXIS 441, at *8 (Nov. 9,
2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Gutshall v. Hamilton, 134 Va. 416, 422 (1922)).
Bethea only raised challenges to the value of the items stolen after her conviction and
sentencing. Her challenge is unavailing, and the trial court was entitled to consider Hall’s
9 Bethea’s cross-examination of Hall went only to identity and not value. - 12 - unrebutted testimony when convicting her.10 See Gregory v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 100,
111 (1996) (holding that because the appellant failed to object when the statement at issue was
presented at trial the statement was properly before the trial court).
As to Bethea’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove she was one of the
perpetrators, identity may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Crawley
v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 372, 375 (1999). “Videotapes, like photographs, when properly
authenticated, may be admitted . . . as mute, silent, or dumb independent photographic
witnesses.” Donati v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 575, 579 (2002) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). Further, videotapes and “[p]hotographs are ‘an aid . . . in ascertaining
the truth.’” Adams v. Ristine, 138 Va. 273, 298 (1924).
Actions by an accused including flight, concealment, and attempts to disguise her identity
“are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.” Leonard v.
Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 134, 149 (2002). Flight “includes the taking of any action, even of
short duration, intended to disguise one’s identity and distance oneself from the crime.” Clagett
v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 79, 93 (1996) (citing Edmonson v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 388,
390-91 (1994)). These actions “may be considered in the context of other facts as evidence
tending to show a defendant’s consciousness of guilt.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 52, 58
(2010).
The trial court found that both direct and circumstantial evidence demonstrated Bethea
was the woman in the blue wig on December 7, 2020. Hall identified her in court as the
shoplifter wearing the pink shirt and blue wig in the store videos. By her own admission, Bethea
10 Further, at sentencing, Bethea did not object when she was informed by the trial court that Lowes was seeking restitution in the amount of $2,434. Her only stated concern at that hearing was whether she would be held jointly and severally liable with the co-defendant. Lastly, Bethea challenged the determination of value as a motion to set aside the verdict. That motion was denied. - 13 - was a member of the ring of women thieves who shoplifted DeWalt tools and sold them to
“some Mexicans.” She admitted ownership of the wig when questioned by police. The blue wig
was consistent with one worn by female shoplifters in incidents in Martinsville and Wytheville.
Bethea admitted participating in the later Wytheville theft, and her appearance and manner in
that incident are consistent with the appearance and manner of the woman wearing the blue wig
in other earlier incidents.
The trial court was entitled to consider Bethea’s use of the blue wig, which she was not
wearing when stopped by Officer Taylor, as evidence that she was attempting to disguise herself
and therefore as evidence of her guilt. See Leonard, 39 Va. App. at 149. Moreover, the
factfinder was entitled to conclude that her request that Officer Umberger return the wig to her
was an effort to conceal or destroy relevant evidence in the case. See Palmer v. Commonwealth,
14 Va. App. 346, 348-49 (1992) (an accused’s attempts to conceal the evidence of her crime are
“admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself”).
The trial court was not required to accept Bethea’s alibi claim. See Pugliese v.
Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 82, 92 (1993). The trial court was entitled to consider Bethea’s
testimony impeached by her prior convictions for felonies and for crimes of moral turpitude. See
Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 10, 11 (2015). The trial court was also entitled to infer that
the reason “Tamara Townsman” was not called as a witness by Bethea was because her
testimony would have discredited Bethea’s alibi claim. See Graves v. United States, 150 U.S.
118, 121 (1893).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion, and was not plainly wrong or without
evidentiary support, when it found that Bethea was the woman in the blue wig who shoplifted
from the Martinsville Lowes on December 7, 2020.
- 14 - CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 15 -