Folson v. Com., 1564-95-4
| Decision Date | 26 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 1564-95-4,1564-95-4 |
| Citation | 478 S.E.2d 316,23 Va.App. 521 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Gregory Robert FOLSON v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
Charles L. King, Arlington, for appellant.
Richard B. Smith, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: FITZPATRICK and ANNUNZIATA, JJ., and DUFF, Senior Judge.
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, appellant, Gregory Robert Folson, was convicted of grand larceny from the person and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court's sentencing order should be reversed and that the case should be remanded for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court admitted improper evidence of his prior convictions. We disagree and affirm the sentence of the trial court.
Attempting to present appellant's prior convictions at the sentencing phase of his trial, the Commonwealth sought to admit two packets of documents it received from the Circuit Court of Prince George's County, Maryland, as "certified, attested or exemplified copies of [appellant's] record of conviction." See Code § 19.2-295.1. 1 The first packet included a copy of appellant's indictment for unlawful distribution of PCP; the case number appears to have been 8802
Page 5 2
The next document, entitled "DOCKET ENTRIES," established that appellant was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment in case number 88-0275. The second packet contained a document entitled "commitment record," which established that appellant was found guilty and received a ten year sentence on charges of robbery, assault with intent to avoid lawful apprehension, and conspiracy to commit robbery. 3 Each packet was bound by seal and string and was received under cover of a document certifying that its contents were "true copies of originals on file and of record ... and that [the] originals together, constitute the record of the proceedings ... in [the] case." The certificates were signed by the clerk of the court; a judge of the court certified the clerk's attestation and the clerk then certified the judge's authority. The second packet contained another certification by the clerk that the "foregoing is a true copy of the docket entries in the above entitled case."
Appellant objected to the admission of the documents on the ground that they were not "records of conviction" within the meaning of Code § 19.2-295.1. Appellant further argued that the certification showed only that the documents were true representations of the originals, not that they were evidence of appellant's prior convictions. The court disagreed, finding that the statute does not require the Commonwealth to produce a final order, signed by a judge. Furthermore, the court found that the documents contained sufficient information to determine that appellant had been convicted for the identified offenses. Accordingly, the trial court found that the documents constituted "records of conviction" and admitted them as evidence of appellant's prior criminal convictions.
On appeal, we must determine what evidence is admissible as a "record of conviction" within the meaning of Code § 19.2-295.1. Appellant argues that only a final order, signed by a judge, is admissible as a "record of conviction." The Commonwealth contends that the statute should not be so narrowly construed. This is an issue of first impression. 4
Nothing in the plain language of Code § 19.2-295.1 requires that a "record of conviction" be established only by the admission of a final order of conviction. The language of Code § 19.2-295.1 describes a "record," not an "order." The plain meaning of the word "record" is
[a] written account of some act, court proceeding, transaction, or instrument, drawn up, under authority of law, by a proper officer, and designed to remain as a memorial or permanent evidence of the matters to which it relates.
Black's Law Dictionary 1144 (5th ed.1979). Thus, we find that "record of conviction" means a "record" evidencing the fact of conviction. While a final order of conviction may be the most expedient means of establishing a "record of conviction," we do not find Code § 19.2-295.1 limited to such evidence.
For purposes of Code § 19.2-295.1, we find that the documents in question here constitute "records of conviction" because they are recorded evidence that the court convicted appellant for the crimes charged. The documents were properly admitted because the attached certifications by the clerk of the court and a judge of that court sufficiently authenticate them. The certifications by the clerk and the judge verify not only the accuracy of the photocopies, as appellant contends, but also reflect the state of Maryland's determination "that [the] originals together, constitute the record of the proceedings " " in the case, reflecting the convictions obtained. (Emphasis added.) The evidence contained in these properly admitted documents, viewed in the aggregate, was sufficient to establish the prior convictions.
Appellant also contends that the best evidence rule bars the admission of the documents in question and limits the proof of conviction to the court's final order. However, the "best evidence rule" has no applicability to this case. In Virginia, the best evidence rule provides that "where the contents of a writing are desired to be proved, the writing [the primary evidence] itself must be produced or its absence sufficiently accounted for before other evidence of its contents can be admitted." Butts v. Commonwealth, 145 Va. 800, 816, 133 S.E. 764, 769 (1926) (quoting 1 Greenleaf on Evidence 682 (16th ed.)); see also Myrick v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 333, 339, 412 S.E.2d 176, 179 (1991); Randolph v. Commonwealth, 145 Va. 883, 889, 134 S.E. 544, 546 (1926); Bradshaw v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 374, 379, 429 S.E.2d 881, 884 (1993).
A judgment is the determination by a court of the rights of the parties, as those rights presently exist, upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaton v. Com.
...this statute, a "record of conviction" can be something other than a final order signed by the trial judge. Folson v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 521, 525, 478 S.E.2d 316, 318 (1996).6 Nothing in this statute requires that the "record of conviction," if otherwise reliable, bear the signature o......
-
Brown v. Com.
...145 Va. 800, 816, 133 S.E. 764, 769 (1926); Randolph v. Commonwealth, 145 Va. 883, 889, 134 S.E. 544, 546 (1926); Folson v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 521, 478 S.E.2d 316 (1996); Bradshaw v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 374, 379, 429 S.E.2d 881, 884 (1993); Myrick v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 333,......
-
Brooks v. Com.
...admissible during the sentencing phase as part of the "record of conviction" under Code § 19.2-295.1. The case of Folson v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 521, 478 S.E.2d 316 (1996), holds that an indictment, which shows the nature of the charged crime, is part of the record of conviction and, th......
-
Watkins v. Commonwealth
...can be admissible through means other than introducing the original version of that document at trial. See Folson v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 521, 526, 478 S.E.2d 316, 318 (1996). It is clear from the context of the record in this particular case, however, that Patton was testifying as to ......