Gary Wayne Greene v. Commonwealth ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Fitzpatrick
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
GARY WAYNE GREENE
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1824-94-4 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
MAY 30, 1995
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Quinlan H. Hancock, Judge
Larry C. Brown, Jr., Assistant Public Defender
(Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for
appellant.
Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
The appellant, Gary Wayne Greene, contends that the evidence
was insufficient to convict him of forgery of a public record.
We affirm the conviction.
A police officer stopped and arrested appellant for an
offense unrelated to this appeal. Appellant had in his
possession a driver's license that identified him as "Mark S.
Smith." When a police officer processed and fingerprinted
appellant at the police station, appellant signed the fingerprint
card as "Mark Smith."
Another investigator telephoned and spoke to an individual
at the residence listed on appellant's driver's license. Because
of information the investigator received, the appellant was
reprinted. Appellant signed the new fingerprint card as "Gary
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Greene."
A fingerprint expert testified that the fingerprints on the
card bearing the name "Mark Smith" were identical to the
fingerprints on the card signed "Gary Greene." The expert also
testified that the fingerprints on the two cards were identical
to another card already on file and bearing the signature "Gary
Greene."
By statute, in Virginia, it is a felony for "any person [to]
forge a public record." Code § 18.2-168. "The fingerprint card
. . . is clearly a public record." Reid v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.
App. 468, 470, 431 S.E.2d 63, 65 (1993).
"'Forgery is the false making or materially altering with
intend to defraud, of any writing which, if genuine, might
apparently be of legal efficacy, or the foundation of legal
liability.'" Bullock v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 558, 561, 138
S.E.2d 261, 263 (1964) (citation omitted). Under this broad
definition, the crime of forgery "is committed by signing an
assumed name, or a fictitious name, for a dishonest purpose and
with intent to defraud." Moore v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 838,
841, 153 S.E.2d 231, 234 (1967).
The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that one of the two names was either an assumed name or a
fictitious name. Appellant signed the name "Mark Smith" on a
fingerprint card when he was first arrested, and several hours
later while he was still in custody, he signed the name "Gary
- 2 -
Greene" on another fingerprint card. Appellant does not dispute
these facts.
From the evidence, the jury also could have found beyond a
reasonable doubt that appellant signed the card using an assumed
or fictitious name with fraudulent intent to conceal his
identity. The evidence supports this finding because it proved
that when appellant signed the name "Mark Smith" he was certainly
aware that fingerprint cards on file identified him as Gary
Greene. Furthermore, on the same day that he signed the name
"Mark Smith," he signed the name "Gary Greene." One of those
names was an assumed name invoked to mislead the police. No
reasonable hypothesis of innocence arises from these facts.
For these reasons, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 3 -