Walter Jack Davis v Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Baker, Willis and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
WALTER JACK DAVIS
v. 	Record No. 0126-95-4 	MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 	JANUARY 23, 1996
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
Donald H. Kent, Judge
Susan L. Korfanty (Office of the Public
Defender, on briefs), for appellant.
John H. McLees, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;
Richard B. Smith, Assistant Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
On appeal from his conviction of attempted robbery, Walter
Jack Davis contends that the trial court erred (1) in refusing to
permit him to present evidence of his employment at the time of
the offense and (2) in refusing to redact from his record of
conviction the sentences imposed for the prior convictions and
his custody status at the time of the prior conviction. 	We find
no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On August 5, 1994, at approximately 9:35 p.m., Claudia
Melara was crossing a lighted area at the intersection of King
and Payne Streets. 	She saw Davis standing across the street
looking at her. 	Davis approached Ms. Melara and grabbed her
purse. 	She held to the purse tightly because it contained
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
important naturalization papers. 	Davis pulled her down and
dragged her, screaming, up the street.
Michael Hannan and his wife heard Ms. Melara's screams and
saw her being dragged. 	Mr. Hannan ran towards them. 	Davis saw
Mr. Hannan, released Ms. Melara's purse, and ran away.
When the police arrived, both Mr. Hannan and Ms. Melara
described Davis as a six-foot tall black man of moderate build,
wearing a green sweatshirt. 	Approximately ten minutes after the
attack, Ms. Melara and the Hannans were taken to a location five
blocks away from the scene of the crime. 	The police were there
with Davis. 	Both Ms. Melara and Mr. Hannan immediately
identified Davis as the attacker.
Davis first contends that the trial court erred in refusing
to allow him to present evidence of his employment at the time of
the crime, during the guilt phase of the trial. 	He argues that
evidence of his employment was relevant to show that he had no
motive to take Ms. Melara's purse. 	We disagree. 	Evidence of
Davis's employment at Roy Roger's alone was not relevant to the
question of whether he committed the attempted robbery. 	The fact
of his employment was not probative of a motive to rob. 	We find
no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rejection of this
evidence.
Davis next contends that his prior sentences and the fact he
was in custody at the time of his prior convictions should have
been redacted from the conviction orders submitted to the jury

- 3 -
during the sentencing phase of the present trial. 	Davis argues
that only the fact of conviction, not the sentences imposed, was
relevant. 	We disagree.
Code § 19.2-295.1 requires the Commonwealth to present
evidence of Davis's past criminal convictions by introduction of
his record of conviction. 	In Virginia, the record of conviction
is the trial court's sentencing order. 	See Abdo v. Commonwealth,
218 Va. 473, 477-78, 237 S.E.2d 900, 902-03 (1977). 	The entire
order, including the sentence imposed, is the record of
conviction. 	Gilliam v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. App. ___, ___
S.E.2d ___ (1996). 	Thus, the trial court did not err in
submitting to the jury Davis's record of conviction in its
entirety.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.