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.