COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Senior Judge Cole
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
RICHARD ARNOLD LEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1170-98-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JUNE 22, 1999
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
J. Howe Brown, Judge
David A. Hirsch (James J. Ishee; Mendelsohn &
Ishee, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
On appeal from his convictions of three counts of credit
card theft, in violation of Code § 18.2-192, Richard Arnold Lee
contends that the evidence was insufficient because it did not
prove that he intended to use the credit cards. We disagree and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On November 14, 1997, Fairfax County police were dispatched
to a Sneaker Stadium store to investigate a report of a bad
check. Officer Paul Alexander found Lee and another man in the
store. Both were dressed as women while attempting to write the
bad check. Lee agreed to accompany Officer Alexander for
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
questioning. Officer Brian Cooke searched the parking lot for
the men's vehicle and found a vehicle bearing improper license
plates. He seized a checkbook and wallet from the car. The
checkbook belonged to Tracy Wormley, and the wallet contained
several credit cards in her name, as well as an identification
card with her name and correct personal information, but with a
picture of Lee wearing a long wig and lipstick. Ms. Wormley
testified that she had given no one, particularly Lee,
permission to take or withhold the credit cards. Lee had the
identification card made. Lee admitted that he drove the car to
the store.
Lee was charged in an indictment, each count of which
provided, in relevant part:
On or about the 14th day of November, 1997,
. . . Richard Arnold Lee did take, obtain,
or withhold [a described credit card] . . .
without the cardholder's consent, and with
the intent to use it.
See Code § 18.2-192. The trial court found him guilty of three
counts of credit card theft, in violation of Code § 18.2-192.
Lee contends that the evidence was insufficient to support
his conviction, because it did not prove that he held the cards
without Wormley's consent and with the intent to use them. We
disagree.
Where the sufficiency of the evidence
is challenged after conviction, it is our
duty to consider it in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth and give it
all reasonable inferences fairly deducible
- 2 -
therefrom. We should affirm the judgment
unless it appears from the evidence that the
judgment is plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it.
Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534,
537 (1975).
Lee admitted that he drove the vehicle in which Wormley's
checkbook and credit cards were found. He had obtained and kept
the credit cards for approximately two months. He had obtained
the false identification card, had used one of Wormley's checks,
and had used her identity to apply for other credit cards. At
the time of his arrest, he and another man, dressed as women,
were attempting to write another bad check. "Intent is the
purpose formed in a person's mind which may, and often must, be
inferred from the facts and circumstances in a particular case.
The state of mind of an accused may be shown by his acts and
conduct." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 137, 455
S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995) (citations omitted). The evidence
supports the trial court's conclusion that Lee intended to use
the cards.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -