Suspended License Rockingham Virginia Lawyer Unauthorized Use
Suspended License Rockingham Virginia Lawyer Unauthorized Use
Francis v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Rockingham County (Virginia), defendant was convicted of a third or subsequent offense of driving on a suspended or revoked license and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to five years for unauthorized use and 12 months for driving while suspended. Defendant appealed.
Suspended License Rockingham Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting, at the guilt phase of trial, an unredacted copy of defendant’s driving transcript from the Department of Motor Vehicles?
Discussion:
Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting, at the guilt phase of trial, an unredacted copy of his driving transcript from the Department of Motor Vehicles (Virginia). Defendant objected that the transcript was irrelevant and prejudicial as it contained information unrelated to his prior convictions of driving on a suspended license. The appellate court held that, even assuming the trial court erred in admitting the unredacted transcript, such error did not compel reversal because the evidence overwhelmingly proved defendant guilty of a third or subsequent offense of driving on a suspended license. Defendant testified that his license was suspended when he drove and that he had previously been convicted twice of driving on a suspended license. In addition the Commonwealth introduced two conviction orders indicating defendant’s prior convictions for driving on a suspended license. The judgment of the trial court 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.
Revoked License Virginia Suspended Traffic Lawyers Orange County
Revoked License Virginia Suspended Traffic Lawyers Orange County
Andy v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Orange County (Virginia), defendant was convicted of a third or subsequent offense of driving on a suspended or revoked license and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to five years for unauthorized use and 12 months for driving while suspended. Defendant appealed.
Revoked License Virginia Suspended Traffic Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting his unredacted driving record at the guilt phase of trial?
Discussion:
Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting, at the guilt phase of trial, an unredacted copy of his driving transcript from the Department of Motor Vehicles (Virginia). Defendant objected that the transcript was irrelevant and prejudicial as it contained information unrelated to his prior convictions of driving on a suspended license. The appellate court held that, even assuming the trial court erred in admitting the unredacted transcript, such error did not compel reversal because the evidence overwhelmingly proved defendant guilty of a third or subsequent offense of driving on a suspended license. Defendant testified that his license was suspended when he drove and that he had previously been convicted twice of driving on a suspended license. In addition. the Commonwealth introduced two conviction orders indicating defendant’s prior convictions for driving on a suspended license. The judgment of the trial court 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.
Traffic Virginia Fake Registration Violation Lawyers Halifax County
Traffic Virginia Fake Registration Violation Lawyers Halifax County
HARRISON V. COMMONWEALTH
Facts:
Defendant appealed from his conviction, after jury trial in the Circuit Court for Halifax County (Virginia), for violating Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-605, that prohibited the holding or use of a registration card known to be altered or forged. He argued the jury should have been instructed that Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-613, which defined a traffic violation for possessing a registration card known to be fake or altered, was a lesser included offense.
Traffic Virginia Fake Registration Violation Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing an instruction permitting the jury to find him guilty of a traffic infraction under Code § 46.2-613(2) either as a lesser-included offense, or as a “substantially charged” lesser offense pursuant to Rule 3A:17?
Discussion:
The evidence showed that defendant was driving a tractor trailer when he was stopped by a trooper, who asked him to produce a registration card. Defendant produced a card that had been altered and told the trooper that he had changed the card. Defendant argued that he was entitled to a charge under § 46.2-613 because that statute defined a lesser included offense of the felony under § 46.2-605, with which he was charged. On appeal, the court noted that § 46.2-613 made it a traffic violation for the “display” of an altered registration card and that § 46.2-605 made it a felony for the “use” of an altered or falsified registration card. The court determined that the terms “use” and “display” were not synonymous and that neither definition was necessarily included in the definition of the other. Thus, the court concluded, § 46.2-613 was not a lesser included offense of § 46.2-605 because proof of either offense did not necessarily prove the other and neither was included within the other. The court affirmed defendant’s conviction
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 Virginia Field Sobriety Test Jury Instruction Lawyers Arlington County
Traffic Virginia Field Sobriety Test Jury Instruction Lawyers Arlington County
Max v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Facts:
In the early morning hours of October 29, 2006, officer of the Arlington County Police Department found appellant, unconscious, reclined in the driver’s seat of a car with its engine running in a school parking lot. Officer determined that appellant had slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet, and had bloodshot eyes. He asked appellant to take field sobriety tests, and appellant agreed to do so. However, appellant refused to attempt it, stating he thought officer wanted to make fun of him. Appellant also refused to attempt the heel-to-toe test and the alphabet test and told officer he had no education and therefore could not perform the alphabet test. Appellant spoke in a soft voice but was belligerent, and repeatedly threatened officer, stating he “prayed that officer’s wife and kids would die within three days.” After talking with appellant for approximately 15 minutes, officer arrested him for traffic offense of DUI. After the trial court denied appellant’s motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of DUI.
Traffic Virginia Field Sobriety Test Jury Instruction Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in not granting his proffered jury instruction defining operating a motor vehicle?
- Whether the jury erred in finding that the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of DUI in violation of Code § 18.2-266?
- Whether the trial court erred at the sentencing phase of his bifurcated jury trial by admitting DMV record into evidence?
Discussion:
1) Whether the trial court erred in not granting his proffered jury instruction defining operating a motor vehicle?
The instruction granted by the trial court fully and fairly covered the principles of law relevant to the question of whether appellant operated the car in which he was found, intoxicated and while the engine was running. We conclude the trial court did not err in refusing to grant appellant’s proffered jury instruction.
2) Whether the jury erred in finding that the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of DUI in violation of Code § 18.2-266?
The evidence at trial proved appellant was in his car and was intoxicated, that the key was in the ignition switch of his car, turned to the on position, and the car’s engine was running. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude appellant was in actual physical control of the car, and was “operating” it within the meaning of Code § 18.2-266. Accordingly, we find the jury did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of DUI in violation of Code § 18.2-266.
3) Whether the trial court erred at the sentencing phase of his bifurcated jury trial by admitting DMV record into evidence?
The court held that “The term “prior traffic record,” within the meaning of Code § 46.2-943, is defined as “the record of prior suspensions and revocations of a driver’s license, and the record of prior convictions of traffic offenses described in Code § 46.2-943. A DMV record is admissible evidence of a defendant’s prior traffic record. Accordingly, when the jury found appellant guilty of DUI, Code § 46.2-943 authorized the admission of his DMV record into evidence during the sentencing phase as evidence of his prior traffic record. The Code § 19.2-295.1 notice requirements do not apply to the admission of a defendant’s prior traffic record into evidence pursuant to Code § 46.2-943. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err by admitting appellant’s DMV record into evidence.”
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
