The Court of Appeals of Virginia has affirmed the convictions of Dean Anton Vitasek, who was found guilty on numerous charges stemming from a highly volatile confrontation with two Virginia Beach police officers in May 2023. Vitasek appealed, challenging the evidence for three specific felony convictions and arguing that his resulting 14-year active prison sentence was excessive given the mitigating evidence he presented. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s judgment on all counts.
The Confrontation: Warrant, Resistance, and Violence
The incident began on May 6, 2023, when Officer Patrick Matthews spotted Vitasek driving a car without a front license plate. After Vitasek entered a convenience store, a brief check revealed an active arrest warrant. When Officer Matthews and Sergeant Joshua Massel, both clearly identifiable, approached Vitasek inside the store to serve the warrant, Vitasek immediately became combative.
Vitasek allegedly responded, “Get away[,] . . . I have a gun,” while reaching for his waistband. The ensuing five-minute struggle involved extreme physical resistance. During the fight, Vitasek reportedly kicked Sergeant Massel in the groin, attempted to stab him with a pencil, and reached for Officer Matthews’s knife. Crucially, Vitasek bit Officer Matthews’s hand through his glove, breaking the skin, and also bit his forehead, causing a bruise.
The officers struck Vitasek to prevent him from accessing the knife. This retaliation resulted in a deep cut on Vitasek’s forehead. Despite being injured, Vitasek was described by Officer Matthews as “enrage[d],” “abnormally strong,” and seemingly unaffected by the officers’ attempts to subdue him. He spat saliva and blood at both officers.
Taser Use and Deprivation of Weapon
When backup arrived, the officers deployed their tasers, but Vitasek remained resistant, briefly immobilized before pulling the probes out. Officer Matthews attempted a “drive stun” maneuver, pressing the taser against Vitasek’s midsection. Vitasek fought back, gaining enough control of the device to point it at Officer Matthews and tase the officer’s arm before Matthews managed to throw the weapon away. Vitasek continued fighting, biting, and spitting until additional officers subdued and handcuffed him.
Following the arrest, police found methamphetamine and related paraphernalia in Vitasek’s car. Vitasek later admitted in jail calls that he was “fucked up” during the fight, describing it as a “six-round UFC fight,” and acknowledged taking the officer’s stun gun.
Sufficiency of Evidence Challenges Rejected
Vitasek appealed his convictions for malicious wounding of a law enforcement officer, possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and depriving an officer of a weapon. The Court of Appeals reviews such challenges by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and affirming the trial court unless the findings are “plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.”
Malicious Wounding Intent Upheld
Vitasek argued the evidence failed to prove he intended to permanently maim, disfigure, disable, or kill Officer Matthews when he bit him. The court noted that intent is a question of fact, and reasonable inferences drawn by the fact-finder must be respected.
The appellate court pointed to Vitasek’s threats—stating he had a gun and would “shoot” and “kill” the officers if they didn’t let him go—as evidence of his willingness to cause serious harm to escape. Furthermore, the sheer brutality of the attack, including biting through a glove hard enough to break skin, supported the conclusion that Vitasek acted with the necessary malicious intent, even if the resulting injury was not permanent.
Felon in Possession of a Stun Weapon
Vitasek challenged his conviction for possessing a stun weapon as a convicted felon, arguing he never gained complete control of Officer Matthews’s taser before the officer discarded it, and thus lacked the requisite intent to possess.
The court disagreed, focusing on the definition of actual possession, which requires physical control, even if brief or joint. Vitasek admitted taking the taser, and Officer Matthews testified that Vitasek used both hands to wrestle the weapon away, successfully utilizing it to tase him on the arm. The court found this brief but conscious control sufficient to meet the “knowingly and intentionally possess” standard, especially given the law’s goal of keeping dangerous weapons from felons.
Depriving Officer of Weapon Use
The conviction for depriving Officer Matthews of the use of his stun gun under Code § 18.2-57.02 also stood. Vitasek contended the Commonwealth failed to prove he *removed* the weapon from the officer’s possession.
The appellate court clarified that the statute allows conviction for either *removing* the weapon or *depriving the officer of its use*. Citing dictionary definitions, the court ruled that when Vitasek gained sufficient control of the taser to use it against Officer Matthews, he, by definition, deprived Matthews of his ability to use the weapon himself. This momentary superiority in control was enough to satisfy the statute.
Sentence Not an Abuse of Discretion
Finally, Vitasek challenged his active sentence of fourteen years, arguing the trial court failed to adequately weigh his mitigating evidence. This included claims of suicidal ideation preceding the incident and concerns that incarceration would worsen his drug use and personality issues.
The appellate court reviewed the sentencing decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard, emphasizing that the trial court is not *required* to find mitigating evidence compelling. The record showed the trial judge considered the mitigation but found it unpersuasive against the gravity of the offense.
The court highlighted that Vitasek’s evidence of past suicidal ideation was not tied to the time of the crime, and his claims about worsening addiction were contradicted by his admission of being on a recent methamphetamine binge. Critically, the trial judge noted Vitasek showed “literally no remorse,” characterized his jailhouse behavior as “chilling,” and was particularly struck by Officer Matthews’s distress. Because the sentence was within the statutory range and the judge reasonably weighed the evidence presented, the Court found no abuse of discretion.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach was affirmed in full.