Sierra v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that appellate courts do not defer to the legal conclusions of trial courts
• interpreting Va. Ct. Code Ann. § 18.2-250: “It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance . . .”
• noting argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove Sierra “knew he possessed methylphenidate, or Concerta”
• framing argument as concerning knowledge of “the particular substance found in his possession”
• defendant’s guilty knowledge supported by officer’s testimony “that he concluded the pills were prescription pills based on the shapes of the pills and the numbers on them”
• “[T]he trial court . . . ‘was at liberty to discount [appellant’s] self-serving statements as little more than lying to “conceal his guilt,” and could treat such prevarications as “affirmative evidence of guilt.”’” (quoting Armstead v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 569, 581 (2010))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).