Paul N. Carrithers v. Commonwealth ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
PAUL N. CARRITHERS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1506-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
MAY 6, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
Robert W. Curran, Judge
Ronald L. Smith for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Paul N. Carrithers was convicted of embezzlement in
violation of Code § 18.2-111. He appeals, contending that the
evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree,
and we affirm.
The parties are fully conversant with the record in the
cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no
precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary.
On appeal, the evidence must be viewed in a light most
favorable to the Commonwealth. See Higginbotham v. Commonwealth,
216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). A judgment will
not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it. See Traverso v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988).
"To establish the crime of embezzlement under Code
§ 18.2-111, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused
wrongfully appropriated to his or her own use or benefit, with
the intent to deprive the owner thereof, the property entrusted
or delivered to the accused." Zoretic v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.
App. 241, 243, 409 S.E.2d 832, 833-34 (1991). The Commonwealth
need not prove the existence of a formal fiduciary relationship,
but merely "prove that the defendant was entrusted with the
property of another." Chiang v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 13, 17,
365 S.E.2d 778, 780 (1988).
The evidence presented at trial supports the conviction.
Carrithers, the defendant in this case, had entered into a
contract by which he had agreed to pay the indebtedness of the
victims. The victims entrusted monies to the defendant for that
purpose. Evidence was presented, through testimony of the
victims’ attorney and correspondence from Carrithers personally,
that entitled the fact finder to believe that Carrithers did
receive the monies. Rather than using the monies for the purpose
for which they were intended, however, Carrithers appropriated
them for some other purpose.
All of the elements of embezzlement having been proven, we
affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 2 -