Virginia Fairfax Traffic Lawyer Public Highway Suspended Driving
Virginia Fairfax Traffic Lawyer Public Highway Suspended Driving
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg
We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.
Mason v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax (Virginia), which convicted defendant of perjury in contravention of Va. Code § 18.2-434 in connection with his testimony at trial on a charge of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway after his privilege to drive had been suspended. Defendant testified at that trial that he had not received notice that his driving license had been suspended.
If you are facing a traffic case in Fairfax, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Virginia Fairfax Traffic Lawyer Public Highway Suspended Driving
Holdings:
The Virginia Court made the following holding:
- Va. Code § 18.2-434 provides in part: If any person to whom an oath is lawfully administered on any occasion willfully swear falsely on such occasion touching any material matter or thing, he shall be guilty of perjury.
- In a prosecution under Va. Code § 18.2-434, the Commonwealth of Virginia must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, inter alia, that defendant willfully swore falsely. If the defendant believes the facts stated by him to be true, he may not properly be said to have willfully sworn falsely to such facts.
- If the untrue representation does not touch any material matter or thing in the trial, Va. Code § 18.2-434, the mere falsity of the statement alone will not sustain a perjury conviction. The testimony must have been relevant in the trial of the case, either to the main issue or some collateral issue.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg
We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.
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, Loudoun, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Fairfax Court House Detail:
Fairfax Circuit Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030.
Fairfax County General District Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030.
Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030-4020.
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.
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.
License Revocation Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Motor Vehicle Reckless Driving Evidence
License Revocation Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Motor Vehicle Reckless Driving Evidence
Fernandez v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Plaintiff driver appealed from the judgment of the Corporation Court for the City of Lynchburg (Virginia), which dismissed his petition to set aside the revocation of his driver’s license by defendant Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles in accordance with Va. Code § 2154(186). The trial court rejected the driver’s argument that Va. Code § 2154(187) entitled the driver to a hearing before revocation.
License Revocation Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether there was any conflict between Va. Code § 2154(186) and Va. Code § 2154(187)?
Discussions:
The driver had two un-appealed convictions for reckless driving within a year. The Director revoked his license and refused to review the revocation on the grounds that revocation was mandatory. The trial court agreed and refused to review the underlying convictions. On appeal, the court found that there was no conflict between Va. Code § 2154(186) and Va. Code § 2154(187). The court held that Va. Code § 2154(186) gave mandatory direction to the director to revoke a license without a hearing after certain convictions, while Va. Code § 2154(187) gave the director the power to revoke based on proper evidence at a required hearing that the licensee had been guilty of the same offenses even without a conviction. The court further held that the trial court could not review earlier un-appealed judgments. The court rejected the argument that there was a contract created by the issuance of the driver’s license that prevented the Commonwealth from changing the required number of offenses from three to two. The court held that driving was a conditional privilege and was subject to the police power of the Commonwealth.
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 Bedford Virginia Lawyer Signal Lane Change
Reckless Driving Bedford Virginia Lawyer Signal Lane Change
Commonwealth v. Mitchell
Facts:
Defendant, after falling to engage his turn signal for a lane change, evaded the police. The chase led from a point more than one mile inside the city to a location more than one mile into an adjoining county. The city convicted him of reckless driving. The county convicted him of driving while intoxicated, but dismissed the reckless driving charge. Defendant challenged the decision of the Circuit Court of Bedford County (Virginia), which convicted him of reckless driving based upon the same act from an earlier conviction for reckless driving.
Reckless Driving Bedford Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
Whether Defendant’s earlier city conviction barred prosecution of the driving while intoxicated charge because it grew out of the same act, that is, the high-speed chase?
Discussion:
The court reversed, holding that the same act meant the same act of driving and contemplated a continuous, uninterrupted course of operation of a motor vehicle, without regard to the crossing of the boundary line between two localities. From the moment the police first observed defendant until finally apprehended, defendant engaged in a continuous, uninterrupted course of driving. The charges against him, therefore, grew out of the same act or acts within the meaning of Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1. Hence, the earlier city conviction of reckless driving required the dismissal of the latter driving while intoxicated charge
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.
Reckless Driving Westmoreland Virginia Lawyer License
Reckless Driving Westmoreland Virginia Lawyer License
Lawrence v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Appellee driver’s operator’s and chauffeur’s license was suspended by appellant, the Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles. The Circuit Court for Westmoreland County (Virginia) reversed and annulled the Commissioner’s order, and the Commissioner appealed.
Reckless Driving Westmoreland Virginia Lawyer
ISSUES:
Whether the circuit court properly reversed and annulled an order of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles under authority of Va. Code § 46-420 (1950), which suspended for 30 days the driver’s operator’s and chauffeur’s licenses.
DISCUSSION:
Abstracts of all previous convictions introduced in evidence show that X was tried and convicted for the various offenses alleged to have been committed in the previous years. Several witnesses, neighbors and associates of X, including a deputy sheriff of Westmoreland county, all of whom had observed his operation of automobiles over a period of years, testified without objection that in their opinion X was now a careful and competent driver. The testimony of some of these witnesses indicated that they would not have considered him a careful driver several years ago, but they said he had improved and they did consider him a careful driver as of the date of their testimony. Evidence fails to sustain the charge that appellee was habitually a reckless or negligent driver of a motor vehicle. However, satisfactory proof of a single ‘serious violation’ may warrant a suspension or revocation. Thus the ultimate question presented is whether or not a fair appraisal of the record shows that X “committed a serious violation of the motor laws of this State” or “by reckless or unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. The offense of reckless driving (speeding 75 to 80 miles per hour) committed in 1952 to which X pleaded guilty is remote in point of time, but it was a “serious violation of the motor vehicle laws.” His offense of crossing the center line of the highway and striking another vehicle, inflicting several hundred dollars damage to the two cars, was committed on June 13, 1954, and is clearly of like character. Failure to observe the stop sign, standing alone, might not be sufficient to meet the requirements of item (5) of § 46-420 and constitute a “serious violation of the motor vehicle laws”, but here what was done meets the requirements of item (1) of § 46-420, for it constitutes the “unlawful operation of a motor vehicle” which “caused or contributed to an accident resulting in serious property damage.” Proof of the latter two violations justified suspension of X’s licenses. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the Commissioner’s order of August 3, 1955, which suspended X’s operator’s and Y’s licenses for thirty days is re-instated and restored to full force and effect.
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.
Speeding Virginia Felonious Negligence Involuntary Manslaughter Lawyers Hopewell City
Speeding Virginia Felonious Negligence Involuntary Manslaughter Lawyers Hopewell City
Walter v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the operation of a motor vehicle after a fatality resulted from a two-car collision. Defendant challenged his conviction from the Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell (Virginia) for involuntary manslaughter in the operation of a motor vehicle.
Speeding Virginia Felonious Negligence Involuntary Manslaughter Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support that the defendant was guilty of felonious negligence?
Discussions:
On appeal, the court affirmed. The court found held that the driver of the other vehicle did not violate the statutory requirement to yield the right-of-way when she turned left in front of defendant’s vehicle. The court reasoned that the approaching vehicles, of which defendant’s was one, were not so close to the driver of the other car as to constitute a hazard, and defendant’s car was in the left lane behind another car, and was temporarily concealed from the other driver’s view. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that defendant was guilty of felonious negligence which was the proximate cause of the fatality. The court reasoned that defendant’s conduct in a residential subdivision constituted reckless driving so flagrant, culpable, and wanton as to show utter disregard of the safety of others under circumstances likely to cause injury.
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.
DUI Virginia Warrant Motor Vehicle Intoxication Lawyers Lee County
DUI Virginia Warrant Motor Vehicle Intoxication Lawyers Lee County
Danny v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction in the Circuit Court of Lee County (Virginia) for impaired driving, a violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-56.1.
DUI Virginia Warrant Motor Vehicle Intoxication Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to quash the warrant?
Discussion:
Defendant had been charged with unlawfully operating a motor vehicle over the highways while under the influence of intoxicants or self administered drugs. He was tried in the county court and acquitted of the charge, but was found guilty of impaired driving. Defendant contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the warrant because the terms of the impaired driving statute did not permit his prosecution in the circuit court upon a charge of impaired driving. He contended that he could not be prosecuted or convicted for a violation of § 18.1-56.1 except as a lesser included offense of a prosecution for violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-54. The court affirmed, finding that § 18.1-56.1 did not permit an interpretation that required automatic dismissal of every charge of impaired driving reaching a court of record on appeal. The court found that the language of Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-56.1 made it clear that impaired driving was a lesser included offense included within the driving under the influence statute. The court held that the statutory definition of impaired driving was sufficient to withstand an attack of vagueness. The court affirmed defendant’s impaired driving 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.
Reckless Driving Virginia Sufficient Evidence Lawyers York County
Reckless Driving Virginia Sufficient Evidence Lawyers York County
Charles v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was found guilty by the Circuit Court of York County (Virginia) of the charge of unlawfully operation a motor vehicle on a public highway in a reckless manner, in violation Va. Code Ann. § 1-189. He appeared before the court on a writ of error and supersedeas to the judgme
Reckless Driving Virginia Sufficient Evidence Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of reckless driving within the meaning of § 1-189?
Discussion:
On defendant’s challenge to his conviction for unlawfully operation a motor vehicle on a public highway in a reckless manner, the court held that the commonwealth’s evidence left much to speculation and conjecture as to what caused defendant to lose control of the car. The only evidence produced by the commonwealth showed the erratic course of the automobile over 900 feet, that the automobile struck trees with such force that the motor was wrenched from it, and that defendant was thrown clear of the automobile and injured. The court was unable to say that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and was consistent only with the guilt of defendant. Hence, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of reckless driving within the meaning of § 1-189. The court reversed the judgment of conviction and dismissed the case.
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 Perjury Driving Lawyers Hopewell County
Suspended License Virginia Perjury Driving Lawyers Hopewell County
Frazer v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The Circuit Court, City of Hopewell (Virginia), entered a final judgment of conviction after a jury found appellant guilty of perjury in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-434. After appellant challenged that holding, the appellate court granted rehearing en banc to resolve the question whether the prosecution of appellant should have been dismissed or remanded for further proceedings.
Suspended License Virginia Perjury Driving Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel not only precludes the Commonwealth, in the perjury prosecution, from proving the underlying controverted fact from the original prosecution that he was driving a motor vehicle on a particular date, but also precludes the perjury prosecution altogether?
Discussion:
Criminal appellant was charged with driving on a suspended license. He informed his counsel he intended to testify falsely that he was not driving on the relevant date. His counsel was allowed to withdraw. Thereafter, his counsel went to work for the Commonwealth. She informed the Commonwealth that appellant had informed her he was driving his automobile on the date charged and that he intended to testify untruthfully about that. The suspended license case was tried. Whether appellant was in fact driving was litigated. Thereafter, the Commonwealth brought a perjury charge against appellant and attempted to prove through the arresting officer that appellant had been driving, and thus, that appellant perjured himself. After appellant was convicted, the appellate court found collateral estoppel barred relitigation of whether appellant had, in fact, been driving. However, it also found remand was required as the Commonwealth could attempt to prove the perjury through facts independent of the fact appellant was driving. It further found the admission he was driving was protected by the attorney-client privilege, but not his statement that he intended to testify falsely. Judgment on the perjury conviction was reversed and the case was remanded as the Commonwealth was collaterally estopped from relitigating in the perjury case the issue already decided in appellant’s driving on a suspended license, that of whether appellant was in fact driving. However, the Commonwealth was not collaterally estopped from proving appellant’s perjury in the prior proceeding by proving facts other than that he was driving
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
