Eric L. Francis v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Humphreys, McClanahan and Senior Judge Bumgardner
    Argued at Richmond, Virginia
    ERIC L. FRANCIS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.     Record No. 3182-06-1                                JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
    MAY 6, 2008
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK
    Westbrook J. Parker, Judge
    Stacie A. Cass, Assistant Appellate Defender II, for appellant.
    Josephine F. Whalen, Assistant Attorney General II (Robert F.
    McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
    Eric L. Francis appeals his convictions of feloniously receiving stolen property and two
    counts of obtaining money by false pretenses, misdemeanors. The Commonwealth concedes the
    evidence failed to prove the value of the stolen property was $200 or more, so we reverse the felony
    conviction. We find the evidence was sufficient to sustain both misdemeanor convictions.
    However, we grant leave for the trial court to consider whether those sentencing orders contain
    clerical errors in recording the judgment rendered, Code § 8.01-428(B).
    We examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it
    all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Haskins v. Commonwealth, 
    31 Va. App. 145
    , 149-50, 
    521 S.E.2d 777
    , 779 (1999). The defendant’s wife worked as an assistant
    manager at Holiday Food Store on Pruden Boulevard in Suffolk. At 6:33 a.m., she took three
    packs of lottery tickets from storage, activated them, but never displayed them for sale. The
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    tickets were never sold by the store. When a pack of tickets has been activated, any winning
    ticket in the pack can be redeemed at any lottery location.
    At 4:00 p.m. the same day, the defendant redeemed all the winning tickets from one of
    the packs at a Kangaroo Express store in Suffolk. He received $105 cash from that store. About
    twenty minutes later at a different convenience store, a Holiday Food Store, he redeemed all the
    winning tickets from a second pack of tickets activated by his wife. The defendant again
    received $105 cash.
    The indictment charged that the defendant received stolen property of a value of $200 or
    more. The defendant asserts the Commonwealth did not prove the value of the stolen property
    he received was $200 or more. The Commonwealth concedes the evidence is insufficient to
    prove the felony conviction because of the holding in Hunt v. Commonwealth, 
    46 Va. App. 25
    ,
    
    614 S.E.2d 668
     (2005). Hunt held the value of a stolen lottery ticket was the value of the paper
    on which it was printed, not its redemption value. Id. at 35, 
    614 S.E.2d at 672
    . We reverse the
    defendant’s conviction of the felony and remand for sentencing on the lesser-included
    misdemeanor.
    The warrants charged the defendant with obtaining money by false pretenses from
    Kangaroo Express and Holiday Food Stores. The defendant maintains the Commonwealth’s
    proof was at variance with the charges. He argues that the Virginia State Lottery was the actual
    victim of the crimes because ultimately it reimbursed the stores for the money paid out in
    winnings.
    In Quidley v. Commonwealth, 
    221 Va. 963
    , 
    275 S.E.2d 622
     (1981), the defendant used a
    forged welfare purchase order to obtain merchandise from a store. Ultimately, the welfare
    department reimbursed the store for its loss. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected Quidley’s
    argument that the welfare department was the defrauded victim rather than the store.
    -2-
    The crime is complete when the fraud intended is consummated by
    obtaining the property sought by means of the false
    representations, and the offense is not purged by ultimate
    restoration or payment to the victim. It is sufficient if the fraud of
    the accused has put the victim in such a position that he may
    eventually suffer loss.
    Id. at 966, 
    275 S.E.2d at 625
    .
    In this case, the defendant presented stolen, winning lottery tickets to two different stores.
    Each store paid the defendant in cash from its own funds. As in Quidley, each of the crimes of
    obtaining money by false pretenses was then complete. See 
    id.
     Although the Lottery reimburses
    for money paid for winning tickets, the stores sustained a loss of cash funds when they paid the
    defendant for stolen tickets. The cash in the till did not belong to the Lottery even though it was
    contractually obligated to reimburse its agents when they paid winners. No variance existed
    between the warrants and the proof presented at trial.
    The defendant maintains that the sentencing orders do not reflect the actual sentence
    pronounced by the trial court. Code § 8.01-428(B) 1 provides the remedy sought, but the claim is
    properly addressed to the trial court. We grant leave for it to consider the defendant’s motion
    and remand for that purpose.
    1
    Code § 8.01-428(B) provides:
    Clerical mistakes in all judgments or other parts of the record and
    errors therein arising from oversight or from an inadvertent
    omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own
    initiative or upon the motion of any party and after such notice, as
    the court may order. During the pendency of an appeal, such
    mistakes may be corrected before the appeal is docketed in the
    appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending such
    mistakes may be corrected with leave of the appellate court.
    -3-
    We reverse the defendant’s felony conviction for receiving stolen property and remand
    for sentencing as a misdemeanor. We affirm his misdemeanor convictions, but grant leave to
    consider whether clerical errors exist in the final sentencing orders.
    Affirmed in part,
    reversed and remanded in part.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3182061

Filed Date: 5/6/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021