Alvin Rudolf Fields, a/k/a Alvin Rudolf Ward v. CW ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Baker
    Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
    ALVIN RUDOLF FIELDS, A/K/A
    ALVIN RUDOLF WARD
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.         Record No. 2904-97-1          JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
    DECEMBER 15, 1998
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY
    Prentis Smiley, Jr., Judge
    G. Curtis Overman, Jr. (Overman, Cowardin &
    Martin, PLC, on brief), for appellant.
    Richard B. Campbell, Assistant Attorney
    General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
    brief), for appellee.
    Alvin Rudolf Fields, also known as Alvin Rudolf Ward,
    (appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction by the
    Circuit Court of York County (trial court) for felonious
    third-offense petit larceny in violation of Code §§ 18.2-96(2)
    and 18.2-104.
    Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it
    admitted into evidence three conviction orders offered by the
    Commonwealth to prove that appellant had been convicted of petit
    larceny three times previously.   He argues that the orders did
    not identify him as the person named therein and, therefore, that
    the evidence was insufficient to convict him of felonious petit
    larceny.   We disagree and affirm the conviction.
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-143, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
    this opinion is not designated for publication.
    Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine
    the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
    granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible
    therefrom.      See Martin v. Commonwealth, 
    4 Va. App. 438
    , 443, 
    358 S.E.2d 415
    , 418 (1987).     The judgment of a trial court will be
    disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support
    it.   See 
    id.
    Over appellant's objection, the trial court admitted into
    evidence three petit larceny conviction orders containing the
    following information:
    #91-02013 (entered July 22, 1991),
    accused--Alvin Rudolph Ward a/k/a Alvin
    Rudolf Field, 1 SSN XXX-XX-XXXX, description
    of accused--black male, d.o.b. 11/30/45, 5'9"
    tall, weight 160 lbs, accused's address--539
    31st Street, Newport News;
    #91-05407 (entered July 22, 1991),
    accused--Alvin R. Ward a/k/a Larry Clark, SSN
    XXX-XX-XXXX, description of accused--black
    male, d.o.b. 7/2/49, accused's address--57
    Bayhaven Drive, Hampton; and
    #92-000092 (entered May 11, 1992),
    accused--Alvin R. Fields, (no social security
    number provided), description of
    accused--black male, 5'11" tall, weight 220
    lbs, d.o.b. 11/30/45, accused's address--539
    31st Street, Newport News.
    The record discloses that appellant alternately has used
    variations of the names Alvin Ward and Alvin Fields.     Appellant
    identified himself to the trial court as Alvin Rudolph [sic]
    1
    On the Request for Appointment of a Lawyer form associated
    with this charge, the accused is identified as Alvin Fields.
    - 2 -
    Fields.   The indictment in the present case charged "Alvin Rudolf
    Fields a\k\a Alvin Rudolf Ward" with felonious petit larceny, and
    appellant testified that he was the person charged in the
    indictment.   Appellant signed the name Alvin Ward to the forms he
    executed requesting the appointment of a lawyer in connection
    with cases 91-05407 and 91-02013.   He also used the name Alvin
    Ward in his motion for discovery in this case.
    Regarding the admissibility of criminal conviction orders,
    we have previously held that "[i]dentity of names carries with it
    a presumption of identity of person, the strength of which will
    vary according to the circumstances."     Cook v. Commonwealth, 
    7 Va. App. 225
    , 230, 
    372 S.E.2d 780
    , 783 (1988).    The record
    sufficiently identifies appellant--Alvin Rudolf Fields, also
    known as Alvin Rudolf Ward--as the person named in the three
    conviction orders.   There is no evidence sufficiently
    contradicting the presumption that appellant and the defendants
    in those orders are one and the same person.
    We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
    when it admitted the conviction orders.     See Witt v.
    Commonwealth, 
    215 Va. 670
    , 674, 
    212 S.E.2d 293
    , 296 (1975) ("The
    measure of the burden of proof with respect to factual questions
    underlying the admissibility of evidence is proof by a
    preponderance of the evidence.").   Moreover, we cannot say that
    the trial court was plainly wrong when it found that appellant
    had been thrice previously convicted of petit larceny and
    - 3 -
    convicted him of felonious petit larceny.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2904971

Filed Date: 12/15/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021