COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

GEORGE PERRY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION∗

 BY 

v. Record No. 1000-05-1 JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN 

 SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY 

Carl E. Eason, Jr., Judge 

S. Jane Chittom, Appellate Defender (Virginia Indigent Defense 

Commission, on brief), for appellant. 

Rosemary V. Bourne, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. 

McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

George Perry appeals his bench trial convictions for forgery of a check and uttering that 

forged check in violation of Code § 18.2-172.1 On appeal, Perry contends the check had no 

apparent legal efficacy, and hence was not forgery under Virginia law. We disagree. 

BACKGROUND 

 We view the evidence in the “light most favorable” to the Commonwealth. 

Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d 781, 786 (2003) (citation omitted). 

The record establishes that Perry cashed a $300 check made payable to him from Franklin Office 

Supply, Inc. The company check was endorsed on the reverse side under the notation “Endorse 

Here” with the signature, George Perry. The upper left hand portion of the face of the check 

 ∗

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 At trial, Perry was also convicted of grand larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-95. This 

conviction is not before us on appeal. 
- 2 -

denoted the drawer of the check as “Franklin Office Supplies, Inc., T/A Mackans Office Supply 

& Printing” followed by the company’s address. Robert Mackan owned Franklin Office Supply 

and identified the check as one of his company’s checks. The lower left hand corner of the 

check contained a handwritten signature, including the first initial “R.” of the purported drawer’s 

representative, Robert Mackan, followed by the last name, albeit incorrectly spelled. The check 

appeared to be a company payroll check. 

 Mackan had known Perry for ten years, and Perry was working for Mackan’s business at 

the time Mackan received notice from the bank of the returned check. After searching company 

records, Mackan discovered a check was missing, and he testified that the company neither 

issued nor authorized the check and that Perry had no authority to issue or sign company checks. 

Mackan examined the lower left portion of the front of the check “where [his] name ha[d] been 

signed” and noted that his name was misspelled. 

Arshanka Davis worked at “Checks 2 Cash” and was familiar with Perry. She recalled 

Perry presenting the check on April 8, 2004. She verified the funds with the bank and requested 

that Perry provide her with a picture identification, social security number, and other 

information. Perry complied and also signed a card and submitted his thumbprint on the card 

and check. Lynette Blow verified the information Perry provided to Davis. Davis cashed the 

check and handed Perry the cash less a fee for cashing the check. 

ANALYSIS 

 Forgery “is defined as ‘the false making or materially altering with the intent to defraud, 

of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy, or the foundation of legal 

liability.’” Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 171, 173, 313 S.E.2d 394, 395 (1984) (quoting 

Bullock v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 558, 561, 138 S.E.2d 261, 263 (1964)). 

[A]n instrument is one of legal efficacy, within the rules relating to 

forgery, where by any possibility it may operate to the injury of 
- 3 -

another. The fact that a document may be so irregular that a bank 

would be justified in refusing payment, or that a transferee would 

be justified in not accepting the instrument, does not mean that the 

writing lacks apparent legal efficacy. A check which has been 

fraudulently written or altered in a manner that possibly will 

operate to the injury of another constitutes a forgery. 

Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 194, 196, 409 S.E.2d 818, 819 (1991) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). 

 Muhammad controls the outcome of this case. In Muhammad, the defendant presented a 

check for payment that did not contain the drawer’s signature. Id. at 195, 409 S.E.2d at 819. 

However, the back of the check contained Muhammad’s, the payee’s, handwritten endorsement. 

Id. Under those facts, we held that the “form company check bearing its name and address 

clearly printed on the face thereof, appearing to be payable in payment of a ‘payroll debt,’ duly 

endorsed by the named payee and presented for payment, clearly has apparent legal efficacy.” 

Id. at 199, 409 S.E.2d at 821 (emphasis in original). 

 The forged company payroll check that Perry cashed contained his name, fraudulently 

written on the check as the intended payee, and his handwritten endorsement on the reverse side 

of the check. Even more persuasive than the facts in Muhammad, Mackan’s purported signature, 

as the drawer’s representative, was on the bottom left portion of the front of the check, albeit in 

the wrong location. The form company check contained the name and address of the drawer 

imprinted on the face of the check and was falsely represented as a company check genuine in 

every respect. Thus, the check Perry presented to Checks 2 Cash for payment had apparent legal 

efficacy. See id.
- 4 -

CONCLUSION 

Under this Court’s ruling in Muhammad, the check was of sufficient apparent legal 

efficacy to support the trial court’s finding that Perry was guilty of forgery and uttering. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Affirmed.