COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Baker 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

ALVIN RUDOLF FIELDS, A/K/A 

 ALVIN RUDOLF WARD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2904-97-1 JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 DECEMBER 15, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY 

Prentis Smiley, Jr., Judge 

 G. Curtis Overman, Jr. (Overman, Cowardin & 

Martin, PLC, on brief), for appellant. 

 Richard B. Campbell, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Alvin Rudolf Fields, also known as Alvin Rudolf Ward, 

(appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction by the 

Circuit Court of York County (trial court) for felonious 

third-offense petit larceny in violation of Code §§ 18.2-96(2) 

and 18.2-104. 

 Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it 

admitted into evidence three conviction orders offered by the 

Commonwealth to prove that appellant had been convicted of petit 

larceny three times previously. He argues that the orders did 

not identify him as the person named therein and, therefore, that 

the evidence was insufficient to convict him of felonious petit 

larceny. We disagree and affirm the conviction. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-143, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 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 will be 

disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support 

it. See id.

 Over appellant's objection, the trial court admitted into 

evidence three petit larceny conviction orders containing the 

following information: 

 #91-02013 (entered July 22, 1991), 

accused--Alvin Rudolph Ward a/k/a Alvin 

Rudolf Field,1 SSN 213-85-0724, description 

of accused--black male, d.o.b. 11/30/45, 5'9" 

tall, weight 160 lbs, accused's address--539 

31st Street, Newport News; 

 #91-05407 (entered July 22, 1991), 

accused--Alvin R. Ward a/k/a Larry Clark, SSN 

234-37-1582, description of accused--black 

male, d.o.b. 7/2/49, accused's address--57 

Bayhaven Drive, Hampton; and 

 #92-000092 (entered May 11, 1992), 

accused--Alvin R. Fields, (no social security 

number provided), description of 

accused--black male, 5'11" tall, weight 220 

lbs, d.o.b. 11/30/45, accused's address--539 

31st Street, Newport News. 

 The record discloses that appellant alternately has used 

variations of the names Alvin Ward and Alvin Fields. Appellant 

identified himself to the trial court as Alvin Rudolph [sic] 

 

 1On the Request for Appointment of a Lawyer form associated 

with this charge, the accused is identified as Alvin Fields. 
- 3 - 

Fields. The indictment in the present case charged "Alvin Rudolf 

Fields a\k\a Alvin Rudolf Ward" with felonious petit larceny, and 

appellant testified that he was the person charged in the 

indictment. Appellant signed the name Alvin Ward to the forms he 

executed requesting the appointment of a lawyer in connection 

with cases 91-05407 and 91-02013. He also used the name Alvin 

Ward in his motion for discovery in this case. 

 Regarding the admissibility of criminal conviction orders, 

we have previously held that "[i]dentity of names carries with it 

a presumption of identity of person, the strength of which will 

vary according to the circumstances." Cook v. Commonwealth, 7 

Va. App. 225, 230, 372 S.E.2d 780, 783 (1988). The record 

sufficiently identifies appellant--Alvin Rudolf Fields, also 

known as Alvin Rudolf Ward--as the person named in the three 

conviction orders. There is no evidence sufficiently 

contradicting the presumption that appellant and the defendants 

in those orders are one and the same person. 

 We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

when it admitted the conviction orders. See Witt v. 

Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670, 674, 212 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1975) ("The 

measure of the burden of proof with respect to factual questions 

underlying the admissibility of evidence is proof by a 

preponderance of the evidence."). Moreover, we cannot say that 

the trial court was plainly wrong when it found that appellant 

had been thrice previously convicted of petit larceny and 
- 4 - 

convicted him of felonious petit larceny. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.