Sufficient evidence supports fraud conviction

Where appellant accepted a down payment from a homeowner for renovations, he was properly convicted of construction fraud because he took the money with the intent to defraud her.

“The relevant question is whether a builder or contractor obtained an advance based upon future work promised with a fraudulent intent not to perform or to perform only partially, not whether the contractor had performed work for which he was paid.”

Prior proceedings

Appellant Wood pleaded guilty to “one count each of felony and misdemeanor delivery of a bad check, … and four counts each of felony larceny of a check, … felony forgery of a check, … felony uttering of a forged check, … felony obtaining money by false pretense[.] …

“The trial court further convicted appellant of construction fraud … for which offense appellant had entered a plea of not guilty.

“On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for construction fraud. In addition, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence for all his convictions that exceeded the sentencing guidelines.

“We hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction for construction fraud and that the trial court’s imposition of sentence represents a proper exercise of its discretion.”

Evidence of intent

“[A]ppellant’s actions and statements proved he intended to defraud Smith [the homeowner]when he accepted her down payment.

“After leading her to believe that he was a licensed contractor, appellant reached an agreement with Smith for him to build a sunroom at her home, although they did not sign the agreement until a month later.

“On March 3, 2020, Smith gave appellant a check for the $16,500 down payment, which he cashed. When Smith became suspicious because the project was at a standstill and asked about her money, appellant chuckled and said the money was ‘long gone.’

“During the months that followed, appellant made numerous false statements to Smith about performing the job, ordering materials for the project, and storing the non-existent building supplies that Smith’s money had supposedly purchased.

“Although appellant dug some holes at Smith’s property and demolished the landing and steps, he performed no further work on the job and provided no excuse for his failure to complete the project. After repeated demands for return of her money, appellant gave Smith a check for the down payment amount, but it was returned unpaid because his bank account had been closed.

“Appellant did not respond to Smith’s written demand for a refund, and he never repaid Smith any of her money.

“Considering these facts and circumstances, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant possessed fraudulent intent when he accepted Smith’s down payment and that he was guilty of construction fraud.”

Sentences

“Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to thirty-seven years’ incarceration, which he contends exceeded the calculated sentencing guidelines. …

“The two-year sentences that the trial court imposed for each of appellant’s eighteen felony convictions, and the twelve-month sentence for the misdemeanor conviction, were each within the statutory ranges set by the legislature. …

“Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining appellant’s sentence, and we do not disturb the trial court’s ruling.”

Affirmed.

Wood v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1089-21-4, June 7, 2022. CAV (Malveaux) From the Circuit Court of Rappahannock County (Fisher). David W. Walls for appellant. Lindsay M. Booker for appellee. VLW 022-7-181, 8 pp. Unpublished opinion.