COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Elder and Bray 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

KATHY HODGES CARTER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1489-95-3 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 DECEMBER 31, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE 

Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge 

 William H. Cleaveland (Rider, Thomas, 

Cleaveland, Ferris & Eakin, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Kathy Hodges Carter (defendant) was convicted in a bench 

trial for embezzlement in violation of Code § 18.2-111. On 

appeal, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to 

prove the conversion of another's property to her "use or 

benefit," together with the requisite intent. Finding no error, 

we affirm the conviction. 

 Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

therefrom. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 

S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). The judgment of a trial court, sitting 

without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

and will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence 

to support it. See id. The credibility of a witness, the weight 

accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from 

proven facts are matters solely for the fact finder's 

determination. See Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 

379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989). 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this 

memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a 

disposition of the appeal. 

 Code § 18.2-111 provides that: 

 If any person wrongfully and fraudulently 

use, dispose of, conceal or embezzle any 

money, bill, note, check, order, draft, bond, 

receipt, bill of lading or any other personal 

property, tangible or intangible, which he 

shall have received for another or for his 

employer, principal or bailor, or by virtue 

of his office, trust or employment, or which 

shall have been entrusted or delivered to him 

by another or by any court, corporation or 

company, he shall be guilty of embezzlement. 

Manifestly, conviction requires proof that the accused, 

"entrusted with the property of another, 'wrongfully appropriated 

[such property] to his own use or benefit, with the intent to 

deprive the owner thereof.'" Chiang v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 

13, 17, 365 S.E.2d 778, 780 (1988) (quoting Webb v. Commonwealth, 

204 Va. 24, 34, 129 S.E.2d 22, 30 (1963)). Such intent "may be, 

and often must be, shown by circumstantial evidence." Whitley v. 

Commonwealth, 223 Va. 66, 73, 286 S.E.2d 162, 166, cert. denied, 

459 U.S. 882 (1982); see Stegall v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 719, 
- 3 - 

723, 160 S.E.2d 566, 569 (1968). 

 Here, defendant, as president of Roanoke Color Graphics, 

Inc., controlled both the corporate financial records and funds. 

 When she corrupted correct ledger entries to at once reduce by 

$5,000 monies previously received by the corporation from another 

and increase by a like sum funds she paid to the corporation in 

consideration for stock, defendant clearly converted corporate 

assets to her benefit. The creativity of her stratagem does not 

diminish her culpability. 

 Defendant's contention that this conversion was under a 

claim of right and, therefore, lacked the requisite criminal 

intent is without merit. We recognize that embezzlement does not 

occur "where the property is taken 'under an honest belief that 

[defendant] had a bona fide claim of right to do so.'" Whitlow 

v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 910, 918, 37 S.E.2d 18, 21 (1946) 

(quoting Wadley v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 803, 810, 35 S.E. 452, 

455 (1900)). However, the record here belies such defense. 

Defendant acknowledged that the alterations were "not a good form 

of bookkeeping" and that "[she] should not have made the entries 

like that." While her testimony and attendant calculations may 

support her claim, "[u]ncontradicted evidence is not . . . 

necessarily binding on the court . . . . It may be disbelieved 

where it is inherently improbable, inconsistent with 

circumstances in evidence, or somewhat contradictory in itself, 

especially where the witness is a party or is interested." 
- 4 - 

Stegall, 208 Va. at 722, 160 S.E.2d at 568. The court expressly 

noted that defendant was "not a credible witness" and concluded 

that she acted with the requisite intent, a finding amply 

supported by the record. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 

 Affirmed.