No evidence error in forgery prosecution

There was no evidentiary error at appellant’s trial, where he was convicted of three counts of forgery of a public document, three counts of uttering a forged public record, identity theft, and falsely identifying himself to the police.

Background

Officer Kreivis was dispatched to investigate a possible crime at a bank. Kreivis met appellant Cobbs, who identified himself as “Rashard Sykes,” and provided a birth date and a Social Security number. Cobbs was detained and taken to police headquarters. There, Patton, a police detective, interviewed Cobbs.

During the interview, Cobbs identified himself as “Rashard Sykes,” and provided a birth date and a Social Security number. Patton confirmed that the birth date and Social Security number corresponded to “Rashard Sykes.”

Patton arrested Cobbs under the name “Rashard Sykes.” Cobbs signed an advise of rights form as “Rashard Sykes.” Patton took Cobbs to a magistrate.

“At trial, the Commonwealth introduced one form titled ‘Financial Statement – Eligibility Determination for Indigent Defense Services’ and a second form entitled ‘Recognizance,’ both of which were provided to Cobbs by the magistrate and both of which were signed with the signature ‘Rashard Sykes.’ Detective Patton identified both documents.

Patton testified that he saw Cobbs filling out the two forms the magistrate provided but did not see him sign them.

“The two forms were authenticated as true copies of the originals pursuant to Code § 8.01-391(C). Cobbs agreed that the documents were true copies but objected to their introduction because no evidence established anyone directly observed Cobbs signing the forms.

“The circuit court found that Cobbs’ objection went ‘to the weight of the evidence,’ not its admissibility, and admitted both forms into evidence.

The true Rashard Sykes went to the police after reading in a newspaper that was arrested on felony charges. Sykes said he did not know Cobbs and did not give him permission to use his identity.

“When the circuit court announced that it found Cobbs guilty of forgery and uttering, it noted that it had examined the signatures on the financial statement and recognizance forms and found them to be ‘almost identical’ to the signature of ‘Rashard Sykes’ that Cobbs wrote on his statement of rights form.”

The court also stated that although no one saw Cobbs signing the forms, the court determined that Cobbs was the person who signed the forms as “Rashard Sykes.”

Cobbs appeals his convictions.

Admissible evidence

“Cobbs contends that the Commonwealth did not establish a sufficient foundation before admitting the financial statement and recognizance forms bearing Cobb’s forgeries of Rashard Sykes’ signature into evidence. …

“The record reflects, and appellant concedes, that the certified court records were authentic.

“The circuit court correctly recognized that Cobbs’ objection to admitting the two forms is more fairly characterized as a challenge to the weight to be given that evidence rather than a challenge to its admissibility. …

“No eyewitness testified that Cobbs signed the financial statement and recognizance forms with the false name ‘Rashard Sykes’; however, when considered with the other evidence and circumstances, the two forms were relevant to prove Cobbs’ guilt of forgery and uttering.

Sufficient evidence

“Cobbs also argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of forgery because the evidence did not prove that he signed the financial statement and recognizance forms. …

“As noted, there was no direct testimony that Cobbs signed the two documents in question. Nonetheless, ‘[c]ircumstantial evidence [presented during the course of the trial] is as competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.’ …

“The record reflects that Cobbs repeatedly identified himself to the police as ‘Rashard Sykes.’ When arrested in 2015 by Portsmouth police, appellant asserted that he was Sykes and he possessed Sykes’ identifying documents, which had previously been stolen.

“Appellant again identified himself as Sykes and provided Sykes’ identifying information as his own in 2019 when confronted by Officer Kreivis. During the interview with Detective Patton, Cobbs signed the form stating his legal rights with Sykes’ name and so continued to assert that he was Sykes. …

“Upon these facts and circumstances, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant signed all the public documents in question and that he was guilty of forgery.”

Affirmed.

Cobbs v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0776-21-1, May 17, 2022. CAV (Humphreys) from the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (Sandwich). Gregory K. Matthews for appellant. Jason D. Reed for appellee. VLW 022-7-138, 8 pp. Unpublished opinion.