Eluding Police James Virginia Lawyer Previous Conviction Double Jeopardy
Eluding Police James Virginia Lawyer Previous Conviction Double Jeopardy
Ibrahim v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed the decision of the Circuit court which convicted him of operation of a motor vehicle after having been adjudged an habitual offender.
Eluding Police James Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether defendant’s misdemeanor driving convictions barred prosecution of the habitual offender charge?
Discussions:
Defendant was convicted in the city district court of two misdemeanors: failure to stop and attempt to elude police, and reckless driving. Charges of driving under the influence and refusal to take a blood or breath test were nolle prossed. A felony charge of operating a motor vehicle after having been adjudged an habitual offender was certified to the grand jury, which indicted defendant on the charge. Defendant did not appeal his misdemeanor convictions. The trial judge in the circuit court overruled defendant’s contention that his misdemeanor driving convictions barred prosecution of the habitual offender charge. The circuit court found defendant guilty of operation of a motor vehicle after having been adjudged an habitual offender. On appeal, defendant asserted that previous convictions for reckless driving and for failing to stop and attempting to elude a police officer barred the habitual offender charge on double jeopardy grounds. The court affirmed because the fact that the two prosecutions involved the element of driving was not enough to invoke double jeopardy.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Reckless Driving Hampton Virginia Lawyer Habitual Offender
Reckless Driving Hampton Virginia Lawyer Habitual Offender
Dick v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed from an order of the Circuit Court of the City of Hampton (Virginia), which convicted him for reckless driving and feloniously driving after having been adjudicated an habitual offender in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 46.2-852 and 46.2-357(B)(2), respectively, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.
Reckless Driving Hampton Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction?
Discussion:
Defendant was convicted by the circuit court of reckless driving and feloniously driving after having been adjudicated an habitual offender in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 46.2-852 and 46.2-357(B)(2), respectively, and he appealed. The court reversed defendant’s convictions, holding that the essence of the offense of reckless driving under Va. Code Ann. 46.2-852, lied not in the act of operating a vehicle, but in the manner and circumstances of its operation. The record did not disclose the time of the accident, the manner in which defendant drove the car, his blood alcohol level, the road condition, weather, traffic controls, or other circumstances probative of such a violation. Reckless driving was not a status offense, and defendant could not be convicted upon speculation as to what caused him to lose control of the car, therefore, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The court also found the evidence to be insufficient to support a finding of felonious habitual offender endangerment and reversed that conviction, but remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the misdemeanor offense under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(1). The court reversed defendant’s convictions for reckless driving and feloniously driving after having been adjudicated an habitual offender, and remanded the case for further proceedings as to the misdemeanor habitual offender offense.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Traffic Stop Manassas Virginia Lawyer Drunken Drive
Traffic Stop Manassas Virginia Lawyer Drunken Drive
Michael v. Commonwealth
Facts:
While defendant sat in the driver’s seat of a vehicle stopped at a tollbooth, a police officer approached the vehicle, smelled alcohol, and arrested defendant. After defendant, a habitual offender, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, the trial court imposed a felony sentence under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2) because defendant’s drunken driving had allegedly endangered the vehicle’s passengers. Accordingly, defendant sought review, claiming nobody had been endangered and as such, the trial court should have imposed a misdemeanor sentence, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(1). Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Northampton County (Virginia), which convicted defendant, a habitual offender, of driving under the influence of alcohol and which sentenced defendant as a felon, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2). In claiming that the drunken driving had endangered nobody, defendant sought imposition of a misdemeanor sentence, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 46.2-357(B)(1).
Traffic Stop Manassas Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the evidences are to prove that the defendant’s drunken driving had endangered others?
Discussion:
The court held that even though defendant had been negligent in operating the vehicle, defendant’s intoxication had not been such that it had elevated defendant’s conduct to the level of reckless driving. Thus, the court held the evidence had failed to prove that defendant’s drunken driving had endangered others, as required by Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2). In reversing a judgment which sentenced defendant as a felon after convicting defendant, a habitual offender, of driving under the influence of alcohol, the court held that because defendant’s drunken driving had not been reckless, the evidence had not supported the trial court’s finding of endangerment and its imposition of a felony sentence
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Reckless Driving Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Traffic Stop Drunk Drive
Reckless Driving Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Traffic Stop Drunk Drive
Roothan v. Commonwealth
Facts:
While defendant sat in the driver’s seat of a vehicle stopped at a tollbooth, a police officer approached the vehicle, smelled alcohol, and arrested defendant. After defendant, a habitual offender, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, the trial court imposed a felony sentence under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2) because defendant’s drunken driving had allegedly endangered the vehicle’s passengers. Accordingly, defendant sought review, claiming nobody had been endangered and as such, the trial court should have imposed a misdemeanor sentence, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(1). Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia)
Reckless Driving Fairfax Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court properly convicted the defendant for drunken driving?
Discussion:
The court held that even though defendant had been negligent in operating the vehicle, defendant’s intoxication had not been such that it had elevated defendant’s conduct to the level of reckless driving. Thus, the court held the evidence had failed to prove that defendant’s drunken driving had endangered others, as required by Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2). In reversing a judgment which sentenced defendant as a felon after convicting defendant, a habitual offender, of driving under the influence of alcohol, the court held that because defendant’s drunken driving had not been reckless, the evidence had not supported the trial court’s finding of endangerment and its imposition of a felony sentence
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Driving Influence Franklin Virginia Lawyer Habitual Offender
Driving Influence Franklin Virginia Lawyer Habitual Offender
Willard v. Commonwealth
Fact:
The trial court’s finding that defendant was a habitual offender was based on a certified abstract from the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles showing that defendant had one Virginia conviction and two West Virginia convictions for driving while intoxicated. The out-of-state convictions stemmed from a state statute and a municipality’s ordinance. Defendant argued that the ordinance did not conform to the Virginia statutes regarding driving while under the influence of alcohol because the ordinance was substantially broader. The trial court ruled that the ordinance was substantially similar to Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-266 and 18.2-269.
Driving Influence Franklin Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in finding that an out-of-state conviction substantially conformed to the provisions of Code § 18.2-266?
Discussion:
In this case, the record of appellant’s convictions in West Virginia indicates only that he was convicted under a state statute and a city ordinance. This description permits the court to conclude only that the appellant committed the offense while operating a motor vehicle. It does not identify the specific provision of the ordinance he violated. Consequently, the court must examine the entire statutory prohibition to see if it permits convictions not permitted under Code § 18.2-266. The Lewisburg city ordinance includes several prohibitions against conduct which would not be violations of Code § 18.2-266; therefore, the court is unable to say that the conduct upon which the appellant’s convictions were based was that which is not included within the prohibitions of Code § 18.2-266. Thus, for the purposes of determining whether the appellant is a habitual offender, the applicable provisions of the Lewisburg city ordinance are not in this case substantially conforming. The trial court erred in concluding that the ordinance was substantially conforming and in finding the appellant a habitual offender. The judgment declaring the appellant a habitual offender is reversed and the information filed is dismissed.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Suspended License Henrico Virginia Lawyer Habitual Offender Evidence
Suspended License Henrico Virginia Lawyer Habitual Offender Evidence
Joseph v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Appellant driver challenged a judgment from the Circuit Court for the County of Henrico (Virginia) that adjudicated him to be an habitual offender according to Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-351.
Suspended License Henrico Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Appellant had the requisite three convictions to qualify him as an habitual offender?
Discussion:
The Commonwealth filed an information accompanied by a Virginia Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) certificate and transcript of the driver’s record. The driver was served with an order to show cause why he should not be declared an habitual offender. At the show cause hearing, the Commonwealth introduced the certificate and the transcript, which included a conviction in a city in another state for driving on a revoked or suspended license. The driver contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had the requisite three convictions to qualify him as an habitual offender. The driver asserted that the evidence did not support the circuit court’s finding that he was the same person who was convicted of driving on a revoked or suspended license. The court held that the Commonwealth introduced prima facie evidence that the driver was the same person as the one who the DMV’s records showed had been convicted of driving with a revoked or suspended license. The circuit court correctly held that the driver was an habitual offender based on sufficient evidence because the driver’s failed to rebut the prima facie presumption that he had been duly convicted on three occasions. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Suspended License Fairfax Virginia Habitual Offender Lawyer
Suspended License Fairfax Virginia Habitual Offender Lawyer
Jack v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Appellant was tried by jury in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia) and convicted of driving after having been declared an habitual offender in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(1) and driving on a suspended license, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-301. Appellant challenged the convictions.
Suspended License Fairfax Virginia Habitual Offender Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to strike the driving on a suspended license charge?
Discussion:
Appellant first contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the driving on a suspended license charge. He could not, he claimed, properly be convicted of driving on a suspended license because, having been declared an habitual offender, his previously suspended operator’s license had been revoked and, thus, was not extant at the time the charged offenses occurred. The appellate court agreed with the Commonwealth that this claim was procedurally barred as appellant failed to raise the defense on the trial level. Appellant also contended that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a defense of others defense. The record did not support appellant’s argument. The defense of others defense applied when a person justifiably used force to defend another person. Here, there was no evidence in the record that appellant used force to protect or defend others. Nor did any of the offenses he was charged with relate to his using force. Appellant merely drove another from the scene of the confrontation. The judgment was affirmed.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Suspended License York Virginia Habitual Offender Double Jeopardy Lawyer
Suspended License York Virginia Habitual Offender Double Jeopardy Lawyer
Thomas v. Commonwealth
Facts:
After defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-301, he was convicted in the Circuit Court of York County (Virginia) of the felony of driving after having been adjudicated an habitual offender, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357, based on the same act of driving. He appealed the felony conviction.
Suspended License York Virginia Habitual Offender Double Jeopardy Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s misdemeanor conviction for driving on a suspended license and his felony habitual offender conviction involve the same offense for double jeopardy purposes?
Discussion:
After an officer cited defendant for misdemeanor driving on a suspended license, second or subsequent offense, he found defendant was adjudicated an habitual offender and got a felony warrant charging driving after being adjudicated an habitual offender. Defendant did not appeal his misdemeanor conviction. The appellate court held defendant, claiming double jeopardy barred a conviction for both offenses, had to show the two offenses involved the same act and crime both in law and in fact. The evidence supporting his conviction for driving after being declared an habitual offender, contrary to Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357, was based on the same act of driving as the misdemeanor, but the felony conviction required proof of driving after revocation rather than suspension. His driving record showed after he was adjudicated an habitual offender, and his license was revoked, his license was suspended many times. Absent evidence that his misdemeanor conviction was based on the same revocation as his felony charge, he showed no identity of the act and crime alleged for each conviction both in fact and in law, so the denial of his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was not error. Defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Suspended License Virginia DUI Lawyers Northampton County
Suspended License Virginia DUI Lawyers Northampton County
Mathew v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Northampton County (Virginia), which convicted him of being an habitual offender under the Virginia Habitual Offender Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 46.1-387.1 to 46.1-387.12, based on a conviction of driving under the influence and two subsequent convictions of driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license.
Suspended License Virginia DUI Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the Defendant’s convictions for driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license arose out of but one act of driving and did not, therefore, result from “separate acts” as contemplated by the Act?
Discussion:
Defendant was convicted of being an habitual offender under the Virginia Habitual Offender Act, which was based on a conviction of driving under the influence and two subsequent convictions of driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license. On appeal, defendant argued that his convictions for driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license arose out of but one act of driving and did not, therefore, result from “separate acts” as contemplated by the Act. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that because defendant could have been convicted of driving under the influence without evidence of the suspension of his driver’s license and he could have been convicted of driving on a suspended license without evidence of his intoxication, the act of driving an automobile on one occasion could give rise to several acts and offenses under the Act. The court further held that it was not the same act that gave rise to each violation of the two statutes under which defendant was convicted. The court affirmed the judgment
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Suspended License Virginia Ordinance Prior Conviction Lawyers Henrico County
Suspended License Virginia Ordinance Prior Conviction Lawyers Henrico County
Francis v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant challenged a decision from the Circuit Court of Henrico County (Virginia), which adjudicated him an habitual offender based upon a prior conviction under an ordinance that was declared invalid.
Suspended License Virginia Ordinance Prior Conviction Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in basing defendant’s determination on the ordinance?
Discussion:
The Commonwealth presented five prior convictions to support its contention that defendant was an habitual offender. Defendant contended that two of the convictions were based upon driving under a suspended driver’s license under former Va. Code Ann. § 46.1-350, which was no longer recognized by Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-301 as a predicate offense for habitual offender status. He also contended that a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol was under the ordinance, which had been declared invalid. The trial court adjudicated defendant an habitual offender, finding that the two convictions for driving under suspension could not be considered but that the offense for driving under the influence could be. Defendant appealed and the court affirmed, finding that the trial court was correct but for the wrong reasons. The driving under suspension violation was properly presented for habitual offender status while the driving under the influence conviction was not. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:18 did not require the Commonwealth to raise the issue concerning the incorrect ruling before the trial court because it was not seeking a reversal of that ruling. The court affirmed the adjudication of defendant as an habitual offender
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
Former State Trooper
