COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Elder and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

MATTHEW L. ARCHER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2550-99-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JULY 5, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY 

James A. Luke, Judge 

 Jay "C" Paul (Johnson & Paul, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Virginia B. Theisen, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

 On appeal from his convictions of breaking and entering, in 

violation of Code § 18.2-91, and possession of a firearm by a 

previously convicted felon, in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2, 

Matthew L. Archer contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient 

to support the trial court's finding that he entered with the 

intent to commit assault and battery, and (2) the evidence did 

not support the finding that Archer was a convicted felon on the 

date he possessed the firearm. We affirm the judgment of the 

trial court on the first issue. We reverse his conviction of 

possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. 
 On appeal, we review the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The 

judgment of a trial court sitting without a 

jury is entitled to the same weight as a 

jury verdict and will not be set aside 

unless it appears from the evidence that the 

judgment is plainly wrong or without 

evidence to support it. 

Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 

(1987). 

 On September 1, 1998, Archer, seeking his wife, Stacy 

Archer, called the home of William Vokian. Archer told Vokian 

that he was coming to retrieve his wife and that he would not 

hurt Vokian as long as Vokian did not interfere. When Archer 

arrived at the house, he began yelling and beat on the front 

door. Vokian and Stacy were in the bedroom. Archer entered the 

house and began knocking on the bedroom door. He broke the door 

frame and pulled the door off its hinges, while threatening to 

kill both Stacy and Vokian. Once inside the bedroom, Archer 

struck Vokian. He then grabbed Stacy, struck her, and pulled 

her out of the room by her hair. 

 Archer was charged with burglary and assault and battery. 

He reached an accord and satisfaction with Stacy, and the trial 

court dismissed the charge of assault and battery. The trial 

court convicted Archer of breaking and entering with the intent 

to commit assault and battery, in violation of Code § 18.2-91. 

- 2 -
 Archer contends that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his conviction for burglary, because it failed to prove 

that he formed the intent to commit assault and battery before 

he forcibly entered Vokian's home. See Bruce v. Commonwealth, 

22 Va. App. 264, 267-69, 469 S.E.2d 64, 66-67 (1996), aff'd, 256 

Va. 371, 506 S.E.2d 318 (1998). 

 Unquestionably, Archer broke and entered Vokian's home. 

Although Vokian could not remember whether the front door was 

locked, the act of pushing the door open was sufficient to 

constitute a breaking. See Bright v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 

248, 252, 356 S.E.2d 443, 445 (1987). 

 Vokian testified that Archer was threatening on the 

telephone and angrily demanded admittance once he arrived at the 

house. Once inside the house but while he was still outside the 

bedroom, Archer threatened to kill both Stacy and Vokian. He 

was so angry he pulled the door off its hinges. Upon entering 

the bedroom, he assaulted both Stacy and Vokian. These 

circumstances support the inference that Archer traveled to 

Vokian's house with the intent to commit assault. 

 The trial court found: 

As to the breaking and entering, the 

evidence shows at the very least between 

entering through the front door and breaking 

through the bedroom door the intent to 

commit assault and battery was formed. His 

statement shows that in his words he lost it 

before he entered the bedroom. The [trial 

- 3 -
c]ourt finds him guilty of breaking and 

entering. 

The evidence supports this finding. 

 Archer argues that the trial court's finding is in direct 

conflict with his own testimony that he did not become upset 

until after he entered the bedroom. The trial court, however, 

was not required to believe Archer's self-serving testimony. 

See Roberts v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 264, 272, 337 S.E.2d 255, 

260 (1985). "The credibility of the witnesses and the weight 

accorded their testimony are matters solely for the fact finder 

who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is 

presented." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 

S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). 

 On November 2, 1995, Archer was convicted of malicious 

wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. On 

December 28, 1995, he was issued a summons relating to the 

condition of his shotgun. The final sentencing order on the 

November 2, 1995 conviction, which vacated the use of a firearm 

conviction and reduced the malicious wounding conviction to 

unlawful wounding, was not entered until March 21, 1996. 

Because the final order of conviction had not been entered on 

December 28, 1995, Archer was not at that time a previously 

convicted felon for purposes of Code § 18.2-308.2. See Bright 

v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 488, 492, 524 S.E.2d 175, 177 

(2000). 

- 4 -
 We affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the 

conviction of breaking and entering, in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-91. We reverse the conviction of possession of a firearm 

by a previously convicted felon, in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-308.2, and dismiss that charge. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and 

reversed in part. 

 Affirmed in part,

reversed in part. 

- 5 -