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.

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.

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.