COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Beales and AtLee UNPUBLISHED Argued by teleconference KEVIN MILES LYDON MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1436-18-4 CHIEF JUDGE MARLA GRAFF DECKER JULY 21, 2020 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Steven S. Smith, Judge Marvin D. Miller (Law Offices of Marvin D. Miller, on briefs), for appellant. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Kevin Miles Lydon appeals his conviction for abduction with the intent to defile, in violation of Code § 18.2-48. He argues that he restrained the victim only to the extent necessary to commit the accompanying sex offenses and therefore the record did not provide an independent basis to support the abduction conviction. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we conclude that the evidence, if believed by the jury, established that the appellant engaged in more restraint of the victim than was necessary to accomplish the other offenses. Therefore, the court did not err in denying the appellant’s motions to strike the abduction charge, made after presentation of evidence, or in denying his motion to dismiss the abduction “indictment,” which he made after the jury found him guilty. As a result, we affirm the conviction for abduction with intent to defile. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. I. BACKGROUND1 The appellant’s abduction conviction arose from acts committed by him against the victim at their workplace. On August 11, 2016, the victim, S.H., was working her evening shift cleaning an office building. She is an immigrant from El Salvador who speaks very little English. S.H. did not know the appellant, who is retired from the Army and at the time of the offenses was working for a “special forces group” that taught surveillance techniques. At trial, the victim provided an account of the incidents that occurred on the night of August 11. She testified that she first saw the appellant that evening in the hallway. He summoned her into the kitchen, where he then gave her an unsolicited hug. S.H. was able to end the hug by ducking underneath the appellant’s arm. Later that night, she went to clean the men’s restroom. She propped open the door with a garbage bin and placed a sign so that people would know not to enter the men’s room while she was cleaning. As she cleaned the mirror behind the sink, the appellant approached her. He grabbed her, turned her around, and lifted her onto the sink. He then lowered his pants. S.H. was unable to escape because the appellant continued to hold her in place by her hand. The appellant used his free hand to grope the victim’s breasts. Despite S.H.’s protests, the appellant masturbated and ejaculated onto her shirt. He also lowered her pants and touched inside her vagina. S.H. continued to struggle, told him no, and asked him to let her go, but the appellant just ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals