COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

DARRELL DEON HARRISON 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 1098-98-2 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 MAY 30, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

L. A. Harris, Jr., Judge 

 Cullen D. Seltzer (Rawlings & Wood, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

The trial judge convicted Darrell Deon Harrison of three 

counts of forgery, three counts of uttering, grand larceny, 

credit card theft, and credit card fraud. Harrison contends the 

trial judge erred in finding the evidence sufficient to prove 

that he took, obtained, or withheld a credit card number, in 

violation of Code § 18.2-192, and that he used a credit card 

number with intent to defraud, in violation of Code § 18.2-195. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the convictions. 

I. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the Commonwealth and accord to that evidence all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Higginbotham v. 
Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 536 (1975). The 

evidence at trial concerning the credit card offenses proved that 

Delia Pitchford, an employee of the Sunglass Hut, sold Harrison a 

pair of sunglasses for $274.99. Harrison told Pitchford that he 

was out of checks, showed her his empty checkbook, and asked if 

he could use his credit card number. Pitchford testified that 

Harrison paid for the sunglasses using a Visa credit card number, 

which he had "written down in the front of [his] checkbook." 

Pitchford further testified that Harrison explained "he did not 

have his card with him [and] his girlfriend had the card." 

Harrison gave Pitchford his own name and showed her his 

identification. He then used the credit card number to make the 

purchase and filled out the warranty card with his own name. 

 The credit card number Harrison used to purchase the 

sunglasses belonged to Harold Lloyd Kretzer, Jr. Kretzer 

testified that he owned a Visa card with the same number and that 

someone made charges to the account without his permission. He 

and his wife always had the cards in their possession. He 

further testified that he did not give anyone permission to use 

his credit card number for making a purchase at the Sunglass Hut. 

Harrison testified that he received the credit card number 

from "a female friend" named Linda Brown, who told him that it 

was hers. He testified that she gave him the credit card number 

because "she wanted to give [him] a gift" as a token of 

"friendship . . . [and] romance." He did not know her address. 

Harrison never had possession of Kretzer's credit card, only the 

credit card number. 

 - 2 - 
The trial judge convicted Harrison of various offenses, 

including credit card theft and credit card fraud. This appeal 

followed. 

II. 

Code § 18.2-192 provides, in pertinent part, the following: 

(1) A person is guilty of credit card 

 or credit card number theft when: 

(a) He takes, obtains or withholds a 

 credit card or credit card number 

from the person, possession, custody or 

 control of another without the 

cardholder's consent. 

 Harrison contends the evidence was insufficient to convict 

him because the Commonwealth "failed to prove that the card 

number was taken or obtained from the person, possession, 

custody or control of . . . Kretzer or that Harrison received 

the card number with the knowledge that it had been so taken or 

obtained." Harrison argues that, because he did not obtain 

physical control or custody of the credit card to the exclusion 

of the cardholder and did not receive the number directly from 

the cardholder, he could not be convicted of credit card number 

theft. 

 The statute, however, does not require the Commonwealth to 

prove that Harrison received the credit card number directly 

from Kretzer. The statute prohibits the receipt of the number 

"from the person, possession, custody or control of another 

without the cardholder's consent." Code § 18.2-192. Although 

 - 3 - 
we must strictly construe penal statutes against the 

Commonwealth, we are required to "construe a statute to promote 

the end for which it was enacted, if such an interpretation can 

reasonably be made from the language used[, and we must] read 

[statutes] to give reasonable effect to the words used 'and to 

promote the ability of the enactment to remedy the mischief at 

which it is directed.'" Mayhew v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 

484, 489, 458 S.E.2d 305, 307 (1995) (citations omitted). 

 Clearly, the statute criminalizes the improper acquisition 

of both credit cards and credit card numbers. The statute does 

not exclude individuals who obtain credit card numbers from 

discarded receipts, via the telephone or the Internet, or any of 

the myriad ways in which credit card numbers can be fraudulently 

acquired without possession of the credit card or without the 

cardholder's consent. 

 The evidence proved that Kretzer did not consent to this 

use of his credit card number. Moreover, Harrison testified at 

trial that he received the number from a woman under peculiar 

circumstances. "The credibility of the witnesses and the weight 

accorded the evidence 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). Harrison testified that Linda Brown 

gave him the number, but he did not know where Brown lived or 

even whether Linda Brown was her real name. Harrison told 

 - 4 - 
Pitchford, however, that the credit card number belonged to him. 

This evidence permits the inference that Harrison knew the 

credit card number did not belong to Linda Brown. Thus, we 

cannot say the trial judge erred as a matter of law in rejecting 

Harrison's testimony that he believed the card number belonged 

to Brown and that Brown was "buying [him] a gift." See

Robertson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 854, 858, 406 S.E.2d 417, 

419 (1991) (holding that the fact finder's determination that a 

witness was credible can only be disturbed on appeal if that 

"testimony was 'inherently incredible, or so contrary to human 

experience as to render it unworthy of belief'"). 

 Harrison acquired Kretzer's credit card number without his 

consent; therefore, the taking element of Code § 18.2-192 was 

proved because Harrison interfered with Kretzer's right to 

determine who shall have the right to use his credit card 

number. Cf. Clay v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 254, 259, 516 

S.E.2d 684, 686 (1999) (en banc) (noting that in the context of 

robbery, a taking from the person does not require actual 

contact with the person, but can be simply taking the property 

from that person's personal protection and presence). 

III. 

In pertinent part, Code § 18.2-195 provides as follows: 

(1) A person is guilty of credit card 

 fraud when, with intent to defraud 

any person, he: 

 - 5 - 
(a) Uses for the purpose of obtaining 

 money, goods, services or anything 

else of value a credit card or credit 

 card number obtained or retained in 

violation of [Code] § 18.2-192 or a 

credit card or credit card number which 

he knows is expired or revoked; 

(b) Obtains money, goods, services or 

 anything else of value by 

representing (i) without the consent of 

 the cardholder that he is the 

holder of a specified card or credit 

 card number. 

The evidence proved that Harrison used the credit card 

number to purchase sunglasses after having obtained the number 

in violation of Code § 18.2-192. To prove fraud, however, the 

Commonwealth also had to prove that Harrison had the specific 

intent to commit a crime. See Campbell v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. 

App. 988, 990, 421 S.E.2d 652, 654 (1992) (defining intent to 

defraud as "act[ing] with an evil intent, or with the specific 

intent to deceive or trick"). "'Intent is a state of mind that 

may be proved by an accused's acts or by his statements and that 

may be shown by circumstantial evidence.'" Wilson v. 

Commonwealth, 249 Va. 95, 101, 452 S.E.2d 669, 673-74 (1995) 

(citation omitted). 

Harrison told Pitchford that the credit card number was his 

and then testified at trial that Linda Brown gave him the 

number. Harrison would have no reason to tell Pitchford the 

credit card number was his if he had not known the status of the 

number. Moreover, as the trial judge noted, Harrison gave 

 - 6 - 
Pitchford a false address when he filled out the warranty card. 

This evidence was sufficient for the trial judge to find beyond 

a reasonable doubt that Harrison had the requisite intent to 

defraud. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions. 

 Affirmed.

 - 7 -