Jerry Lewis Reynolds v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Humphreys and Agee
Argued at Salem, Virginia
JERRY LEWIS REYNOLDS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0038-00-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
MARCH 27, 2001
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Charles J. Strauss, Judge
Albert L. Shaw for appellant.
Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
The trial court convicted Jerry Lewis Reynolds of three
counts of forgery, statutory burglary, and petit larceny. He
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding no error,
we affirm.
We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358
S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). Shelley Johnson's home in Pittsylvania
County was burglarized June 20, 1999. The burglar stole $50
cash and Johnson's checkbook, which included check numbers 106
through 114.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
The defendant presented check number 106, payable to James
Miller and endorsed with that name, at First National Bank of
Altavista in neighboring Campbell County. Donna Blanks, the
teller, refused to cash the check when the defendant could not
provide any identification. Upon the refusal, the defendant
said nothing but turned and walked out of the bank leaving the
check there. Deputy David Wilkes viewed the bank's videotape of
the transaction and identified the defendant as the person
uttering the check.
Mary Gary worked at Sycamore Grocery, a few miles from
Johnson's home. The defendant presented her with six or seven
checks drawn on Shelley Johnson's account. The defendant
endorsed the checks on the back, and Gary cashed the checks
without requiring identification. She did not recall whether
the dates on the checks were the dates the defendant presented
them. The first series of checks, payable to Jason Robertson
and endorsed with that name, were dishonored and returned. A
few days later, the defendant again came to the store and
presented another check. Gary told him she could no longer cash
it for him. The defendant left without saying anything. During
his investigation, Deputy Wilkes never located a person named
Jason Robertson.
The Commonwealth admitted check number 106, which was
presented to the Bank of Altavista, and seven checks numbered
107 through 114, which were cashed by the grocery. The checks
- 2 -
were in the checkbook when stolen, and the owner's handwriting
did not appear on any of them.
First, we consider whether the evidence supports the
burglary and petit larceny convictions. Possession of recently
stolen goods permits the inference that the possessor stole
them. Bright v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 248, 251, 356 S.E.2d
443, 444 (1987). If the evidence proves goods were taken during
a simultaneous burglary and larceny, recent possession of the
stolen goods permits an inference the possessor committed the
burglary. Schaum v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 498, 501, 211 S.E.2d
73, 76 (1975). Unexplained possession of recently stolen goods
permits a "direct inference of the breaking and entering
necessary to establish some type of burglary." John L.
Costello, Virginia Criminal Law and Procedure § 9.2, 126-27 (2d
ed. 1999) (footnote omitted).
The trial court found the defendant presented check number
106 to the bank in Campbell County three days after it was
stolen from the Johnson home. His possession of the stolen
check coupled with his unusual behavior of departing the scene
after payment was refused, permitted the trial court to find the
defendant guilty of both the breaking and entering and the
larceny of the check.
Next, we consider whether the evidence supports the forgery
convictions. "'[P]ossession of a forged check by an accused,
which he claims as a payee, is prima facie evidence that he
- 3 -
either forged the instrument or procured it to be forged.'"
Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 171, 174, 313 S.E.2d 394,
395 (1984) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). While
this is not a conclusive presumption, "it will warrant
submission of the issue of guilt of forgery to the jury, and
will support a verdict of guilty if the jury so finds." Id.(citation omitted).
Three days after a burglary, the defendant tried to cash
check 106, payable to James Miller and endorsed with that name.
The defendant presented six or seven checks drawn on Shelley
Johnson's account to the Sycamore Grocery. Check numbers 108,
110, and 114 were payable to Jason Robertson. They were
endorsed Jason Roberson (108), Jason Rubertson (110), and Jason
Rebertson (114). The trial court convicted the defendant of
forgery of checks 108, 110, and 114 because it found the
handwriting similar to that on check 106. "Comparison of known
and questioned [writing] samples may be made by the jury, even
without the benefit of expert testimony." Charles E. Friend,
The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 15-11(d), 547 (5th ed. 1999)
(citing Keister v. Philips, 124 Va. 585, 98 S.E. 674 (1919)).
The defendant possessed forged checks which he presented
for payment. He posed as the fictitious payees and endorsed the
checks with the fictitious names. The fact finder was entitled
to infer the defendant either forged the checks or procured
their forgery. Fitzgerald, 227 Va. at 174, 313 S.E.2d at 396.
- 4 -
The checks were similar in so many ways 1 that a reasonable person
viewing the exhibits could conclude they had a common origin.
The evidence supports the defendant's convictions of forging
checks numbered 108, 110, and 114.
Accordingly, we affirm his convictions.
Affirmed.
1
Not only were the names of the payees similar, the amount
of the checks and the memo notations were similar. Most
striking, the errors in the spellings were similar. The payor's
name was misspelled on all but two of the checks even though her
name was printed on the face of the check. The checks payable
to Jason Robertson were endorsed with different spellings of
Robertson but made in similar handwriting.
- 5 -