Alvin Rudolf Fields, a/k/a Alvin Rudolf Ward v. CW

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 -