Opinion
Record No. 2101-91-2
May 4, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY RICHARD H. C. TAYLOR, JUDGE.
Cheryl K. Arflin for appellant.
Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Benton and Cole.
When the case was argued, Judge Koontz presided. Judge Moon was elected Chief Judge effective May 1, 1993.
Retired Judge Marvin F. Cole took part in the consideration in this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17-116.01.
Argued at Richmond, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Jay Ethan Tudor contends on this appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed grand larceny. He also contends that his sentence of twenty years in the penitentiary, with ten years of that sentence suspended, was so excessive as to be unconstitutional. We affirm the conviction and the sentence.
The evidence at the bench trial proved that Tudor was employed as a cashier at Truckstops of America, a retail business establishment. While investigating a complaint of theft on March 12, 1991, police investigator George Hansen questioned Tudor. After the questioning, Tudor signed a written statement which read as follows:
On February 23rd 1991 I was working evening shift at the Truck Stops of America in Ashland. A driver came to my fuel desk counter and asked for a Green Back check, which I gave him. He made a mistake on the first one and I gave him another which he endorsed and I got an authorization number for, and gave him the money. The other check he messed up on was left and I put that in with my paper work knowing it was not good. It was check #70142542 for two hundred dollars. I did not put an authorization number or stamp it with my stamp like I am suppose to because I knew it was not good. I took the two hundred dollars and put the money in my bank which I want to pay back to the Truck Stops. This was the only check I have done this way and I did not intend to rip the truck stop off. I did not realize that the check would be sent back to them, I just thought the check company would except it. I have received no promises or threats for making this statement.
The manager of the business testified that Tudor gave him two hundred dollars to repay the money that Tudor took from the cash drawer. The money was repaid on the same day that Tudor signed the statement. In addition to the manager's testimony, the statement and the invalid check #70142542 were admitted as evidence.
Tudor asserts that the only evidence of the existence of a crime was his statement, and he argues that a confession alone is insufficient to support a conviction. This argument is based on a misperception of the evidence.
"It is well settled in [Virginia] that . . . the corpus delicti cannot be established by the extrajudicial confession of an accused, uncorroborated by other evidence." Reid v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 464, 468, 144 S.E.2d 310, 313 (1965). It is equally well settled, however, that "when the [accused] has fully confessed the crime 'only slight corroborative evidence is necessary to establish the corpus delicti.'" Williams v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 168, 175, 360 S.E.2d 361, 366 (1987). Tudor's statement is a full confession of the offense of grand larceny. The confession was corroborated at trial by the admission of the invalid check. In addition, the manager testified that Tudor repaid the two hundred dollar amount. This evidence, together with Tudor's confession that he took two hundred dollars from his drawer and put in its place an invalid check, proved beyond a reasonable doubt the occurrence of a larceny.
Tudor's contention that the evidence did not prove grand larceny lacks merit. Tudor argues that because the financial reconciliation of his transactions and the transactions of the other cashier who worked the same shift showed a overage of four dollars on February 23, 1991, the evidence did not prove grand larceny. However, Tudor's confession proved that he took two hundred dollars. "Since money was the subject of the larceny its face value is its value." Wright v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 132, 139, 82 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1954). The taking of two hundred dollars or more from another constitutes grand larceny. Code § 18.2-95.
Tudor also contends that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive. We disagree. At the time of the offense grand larceny was "punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than one nor more than twenty years or in the discretion of the . . . judge sitting without a jury, [confinement] in jail for a period not exceeding twelve months or fined not more than $1,000, either or both." Code § 18.2-95. "[A] sentence imposed . . . within the statutory limits fixed by the legislature . . . will not be disturbed on appeal, and any contention that punishment was excessive will be 'without merit.'" Bassett v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 580, 582, 414 S.E.2d 419, 420 (1992) (quoting Satterwhite v. Commonwealth, 201 Va. 478, 483, 111 S.E.2d 820, 824 (1960)). Tudor's sentence of twenty years in the penitentiary, with ten years suspended, was within the range of punishment determined by the legislature. Moreover, the harshness of which Tudor complains is tempered by Tudor's prior record of convictions and the circumstance noted by the trial judge that Tudor was on probation and parole when he committed the larceny.
For these reasons, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.