Rodriquez v. Com.
Decision Date | 04 December 2007 |
Docket Number | Record No. 3150-06-2. |
Citation | 653 S.E.2d 296,50 Va. App. 667 |
Parties | Ivan RODRIQUEZ, s/k/a Ivan Jesus Rodriquez v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Steven B. Novey (Novey and Tomko Law Firm, on brief), Prince George, for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: FRANK and CLEMENTS, JJ., and COLEMAN, S.J.
COLEMAN III, Judge.
Ivan Rodriquez appeals his convictions for two counts of forging a public document and two counts of uttering a forged public document.1 Rodriquez argues the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions because, although he gave his brother's name to a police officer who was issuing traffic summonses to him, he signed his own name on the summonses and he did not falsely make or materially alter any writing. Accordingly, he contends he neither forged a signature nor made a false document. We disagree and affirm his convictions.
The facts, which were not in dispute, were presented to the trial court by way of proffer. Sergeant Heflin initiated a traffic stop for a vehicle being driven by Rodriquez because the registration plate on the vehicle was expired. After the stop the officer determined Rodriquez did not have an operator's license in his possession. In providing the officer with the information necessary to issue summonses, Rodriquez verbally provided Heflin with his brother's identifying information and Heflin, using that information, prepared and issued two traffic summonses in Rodriquez's brother's name, Osvaldo Rodriquez. Heflin handed the summonses to Rodriquez, and Rodriquez signed them, using his own name, and not that of his brother Osvaldo. In doing so, Rodriquez did and intended to sign his own name on the summonses. The trial judge found, however, that the signature of "Ivan Rodriquez" on the summonses was illegible.
Rodriquez argues that by signing his own name to the summonses, he did not possess the requisite intent to defraud required to prove forgery, that he did not commit forgery by signing a false name, and he did not make a false public document. "`The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.'" Blake v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 706, 707-08, 427 S.E.2d 219, 220 (1993) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987)).
Code § 18.2-68, which proscribes the offense of forgery, provides in pertinent part: "If any person forge a public record ... or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged record ... knowing the same to be forged, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony." Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 171, 173-74, 313 S.E.2d 394, 395 (1984) (quoting Bullock v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 558, 561, 138 S.E.2d 261, 263 (1964)).
The summonses issued to Rodriquez by Heflin were public records. See Reid v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 468, 470, 431 S.E.2d 63, 64 (1993) ( ).
Rodriquez argues he did not falsely make a writing because Heflin prepared and wrote the information on the summonses. "No definition of forgery can be comprehensive enough to include all the crimes that may be committed by simple use of pen, paper and ink." Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 194, 198, 409 S.E.2d 818, 821 (1991). "`The purpose of the statute against forgery is to protect society against the fabrication, falsification and the uttering of instruments which might be acted upon as being genuine.'" Id. at 199, 409 S.E.2d at 821 (quoting Mayes v. State, 264 Ark. 283, 571 S.W.2d 420, 427 (1978)) (emphasis in original).
In Campbell v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 174, 431 S.E.2d 648 (1993), the Supreme Court affirmed a forgery conviction where a judge had directed a court clerk to change a defendant's name on a computer used to create the court's docket. Id. at 176-77, 431 S.E.2d at 649-50. Just as the judge in Campbell falsely "made or altered" a public document by directing the court clerk to falsify the printed record, Rodriquez caused Officer Heflin to make a forged summons by providing false information to the officer as he prepared the documents. Although Rodriquez did not personally write the false information, he provided the information to Heflin as he created the documents and, in doing so, Rodriquez engaged in the "false making" of the two public documents.
Furthermore, "[s]igning one's own name with the intent that the writing be received as written by another person, or impersonating another in the signature of an instrument, or signing in such a way as to make the writing purport to be that of another, are all acts of forgery." United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 958, 960 (9th Cir.1981) (citations omitted); see also Quick Serv. Box Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 95 F.2d 15, 16-17 (7th Cir.1938) ( ); Colorado v. Brown, 193 Colo. 120, 562 P.2d 754, 755 (1977) ( ); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 89 Ky. 157, 12 S.W. 264, 265 (1889) ( ); 36 Am.Jur.2d Forgery § 10 (2001) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alvarez v. Lynch
...“false making” aspect of forgery, Virginia forgery sweeps more broadly than the federal generic definition: Rodriquez v. Commonwealth , 50 Va.App. 667, 653 S.E.2d 296, 298 (2007). In Rodriquez , police stopped the defendant, Ivan Rodriquez, because his registration plate had expired, and su......
-
Court Of Appeals Of Va. Samuel C. Asinugo v. Commonwealth Of Va.
...S.E.2d 394, 395 (1984) (quoting Bullock v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 558, 561, 138 S.E.2d 261, 263 (1964)). Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 667, 671, 653 S.E.2d 296, 298 (2007). "The fingerprint card, which Code § 19.2-390 requires the police to prepare and submit to the Central Criminal......
-
Goodwin v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0190–14–3.
...in this appeal.2 The appellant does not contest that the traffic summonses are public records. See Rodriquez v. Commonwealth, 50 Va.App. 667, 671, 653 S.E.2d 296, 298 (2007) (holding that the summonses issued to the defendant were “public records” under Code § 18.2–168 ).3 We do not conside......
-
Henry v. Commonwealth
...writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy, or the foundation of legal liability.’ ” Rodriquez v. Commonwealth, 50 Va.App. 667, 671, 653 S.E.2d 296, 298 (2007) (quoting Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 171, 173–74, 313 S.E.2d 394, 395 (1984)). “At common law, to con......