COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Overton 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER HUMPHRIES, S/K/A 

 MICHAEL A. HUMPHRIES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0282-04-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 JANUARY 11, 2005 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 

Mark S. Davis, Judge 

 Laurel A. Uhlar (St. Clair Law Firm, on brief), for appellant. 

 Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Michael Christopher Humphries, appellant, was convicted of third offense petit larceny and 

assault and battery. He appeals and contends the trial court erred by finding that the 

Commonwealth sufficiently proved that he had been previously convicted of two larceny type 

offenses and contends the evidence was insufficient to support either of his convictions. We 

disagree and affirm. 

Facts

 Randy Silver, the meat manager at a grocery store, was cutting meat and noticed 

appellant standing by the meat case. Appellant looked at Silver, then at the steaks, then at Silver, 

and then at the steaks. Silver was suspicious, so when appellant picked up the steaks, Silver 

followed him to see where he was taking the meat. Initially, appellant put the steaks into his 

cart. When Silver confronted him as he was heading towards the front of the store, Silver 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
 -2-

noticed the meat was no longer in the cart. Silver asked appellant what had happened to the 

meat, and appellant responded that he did not have anything and that the meat was back on the 

aisle. Silver asked where and explained he needed to return the meat to the meat case. Appellant 

said, “Naw, here it is,” and lifted his shirt and pulled packages of steaks, boneless chicken and 

boneless pork out of his pants. As Silver tried to take appellant to the front of the store and call 

the police, appellant tried to get away. Appellant and Silver began wrestling and fell to the floor. 

Silver took appellant to the office in the rear of the store. As Silver talked to the assistant 

manager, appellant tried to sneak out the door. As Silver tried to grab him, appellant pushed 

Silver in the face and then elbowed him in the face. 

 At trial, appellant claimed that Silver accused him of stealing, jumped on him and ripped 

his shirt. Appellant claimed he told Silver he was going to sue the store because he “ain’t have 

nothing on [him].” Appellant denied having any meat with him when the struggle with Silver 

began. Appellant said he had two packages of steaks, three packages of pork chops, two 

packages of chicken and a pack of link sausages in his grocery cart and that he left his cart and 

went outside to his car to get his grocery list. 

Proof of previous larceny type offense issue

In appellant’s bench trial, the Commonwealth proved that appellant had been previously 

convicted of two larceny type offenses, making appellant eligible for the enhanced penalty 

provisions of Code § 18.2-104. The Commonwealth offered into evidence two prior court 

orders. Commonwealth’s Exhibit #4 proved that appellant was convicted of petit larceny on 

April 15, 2002. Commonwealth’s Exhibit #5, to which appellant objected, is an order revoking 

appellant’s probation given for his conviction on October 19, 1994 for grand larceny. Appellant 

contends that although the probation revocation order references the grand larceny conviction of 
 -3-

October 19, 1994, the order is insufficient to prove one of the two larceny type convictions 

needed for the enhanced punishment. 

“[T]he Commonwealth is entitled to a presumption of regularity which attends the prior 

conviction because ‘every act of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be presumed to have 

been rightly done, till the contrary appears.’” Nicely v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 579, 584, 

490 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1997) (citation omitted). Therefore, unless the defendant presents evidence 

rebutting the presumption of regularity, the Commonwealth has satisfied its burden of proving 

the prior conviction was valid, and established a third offense in order to enhance punishment. 

See Samuels v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 119, 123-24, 497 S.E.2d 873, 875 (1998). The 

probation revocation order states that appellant “stands convicted of Grand Larceny on October 

19, 1994 and was sentenced to the State Correctional Facility for a period of two (2) years, but 

the court suspended the sentence,” and then states that appellant’s probation is revoked due to 

probation violations. This document, certified by the clerk of court, was properly admitted and 

proved that appellant was convicted of grand larceny on October 19, 1994. Appellant did not 

rebut the presumption of regularity of this order. This order constituted competent evidence, as 

required by Code § 18.2-104, from which the fact finder could find that appellant had been 

previously convicted of a larceny offense. The trial court did not err by finding that this order, 

referencing the grand larceny conviction, was sufficient to prove a third offense in order to 

enhance punishment. 

 Moreover, appellant admitted during his testimony that he had been convicted of two 

prior larceny convictions. The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 

appellant committed third offense petit larceny. 
 -4-

Sufficiency issues

 “On appeal, ‘we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.’” Archer v. Commonwealth, 

26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997) (citation omitted). “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). 

 The fact finder believed the Commonwealth’s evidence, and rejected appellant’s 

evidence. The Commonwealth’s evidence proved that appellant committed larceny when he 

stole meat from the store and hid it in his pants. When Silver stopped him, appellant initially 

said he had put the packages of meat down on another aisle, but then acknowledged that he had it 

and pulled the packages of meat out of his pants. Thereafter, appellant was taken to a back 

office. When Silver tried to stop appellant from sneaking away before the police arrived, 

appellant committed assault and battery when he pushed and elbowed Silver in the face. The 

Commonwealth’s evidence was competent, was not inherently incredible, and was sufficient to 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the charged offenses. 

 Affirmed.