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.
Impaired Driving Fairfax County Virginia Blood Test Alcohol Lawyers
Impaired Driving Fairfax County Virginia Blood Test Alcohol Lawyers
James v. Town of Christiansburg
Fact:
After the car he was driving was stopped, defendant exhibited several indicia of intoxication. Defendant challenged the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the punishments for driving under the influence of intoxicants and for impaired driving, that if it had a reasonable doubt as to the grade of offense that they should find defendant guilty of the lower grade, and what constituted impaired driving. The trial court, interpreting Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-56.1, ruled that, because there was no evidence of a blood test showing defendant’s blood-alcohol content to be between 0.10 and 0.15 percent, the offense of impaired driving could not be considered by the jury.
Impaired Driving Fairfax County Virginia Blood Test Alcohol Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether under Code § 18.1-56.1, which makes impaired driving a lesser included offense of drunk driving, the defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed on the lesser offense although there was no evidence of a blood test?
Observation and Holding:
The first paragraph of the statute creates and defines the offense of impaired driving. Under the language of the first clause of the second paragraph it is perfectly manifest that in every prosecution for driving while intoxicated an accused may be convicted of the lesser included offense of impaired driving. While the second clause of the second paragraph provides that a presumption of impaired driving arises when the alcoholic content of a person’s blood is within a specified range, the language of the statute does not make evidence of blood-alcohol content within the specified range mandatory before the lesser offense can be considered. Hence in every prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants an accused is entitled to have the triers of fact consider the offense of impaired driving even though there is no evidence of the alcoholic content of his blood. We hold that under the provisions of Code § 18.1-56.1 the trial court erred in not granting the instructions requested by the defendant. The judgment of conviction is set aside and the case is reversed and remanded.
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 Certificate Analysis Influence Alcohol Lawyers Alexandria City
DUI Virginia Certificate Analysis Influence Alcohol Lawyers Alexandria City
Rock v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant appealed her convictions by the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria (Virginia), for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 and for involuntary manslaughter in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-36.1(A).
DUI Virginia Certificate Analysis Influence Alcohol Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erroneously admitted the certificate of analysis and improperly relied on the test results’ statutory presumption of intoxication?
Discussion:
Defendant was driving her vehicle when she struck and killed a pedestrian. She was arrested on a charge of hit and run fatality and administered a breathalyzer test. She was indicted for driving under the influence of alcohol and involuntary manslaughter. The trial court admitted her breathalyzer results despite her objection that it was inadmissible because she had not been arrested for driving under the influence within two hours of the offense, as required by Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268. The court concluded that reversible error occurred because the trial court erroneously admitted the certificate of analysis and improperly relied on the test results’ statutory presumption of intoxication. The commonwealth did not offer evidence on the significance of the test results in the certificate. Clear evidence therefore implied that the trial court applied the statutory presumption of intoxication, and the court was unable to say that this error did not affect the trial court’s decision. The court ruled that exigent circumstances did not exist because the commonwealth failed to introduce independent evidence of the significance of the test results. The court reversed defendant’s convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol and for involuntary manslaughter. The court remanded for further proceedings if the commonwealth so desired.
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 Habitual Offender Registration Loudoun County
Reckless Driving Virginia Habitual Offender Registration Loudoun County
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. BRANDLY
Facts:
Defendant appealed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which convicted defendant of operation of a motor vehicle by a habitual offender, driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, and failure to display registration.
Reckless Driving Virginia Habitual Offender Registration
Issue:
- Whether the defendant guilty of operation of a motor vehicle by a habitual offender, driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, and failure to display registration?
Discussion:
The district court finds that defendant guilty of operation of a motor vehicle by a habitual offender, driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, and failure to display registration. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in admitting three documents at her trial. First, defendant alleged that a court order and a Department of Motor Vehicles transcript were not properly authenticated under Virginia law. The court applied federal law and held that the seals and attestations on these documents were sufficient. Defendant also asserted that a record of her previous conviction for driving while intoxicated should have been excluded. State judgments were presumptively valid and defendant offered no evidence to overcome that presumption. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for felonious operation of a motor vehicle by a habitual offender. Finally, defendant asserted that her conviction for reckless driving must have been vacated in light of Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1 (Michie Supp. 1999), which prohibits simultaneous convictions for reckless driving and driving while intoxicated. The court agreed and vacated the conviction. Judgment affirmed except as to defendant’s conviction and sentence for reckless driving, which was vacated; the seals and attestations on certain documents were sufficient, defendant’s conviction for felonious operation of a motor vehicle by a habitual offender was supported by sufficient evidence, and defendant could not have been convicted of both reckless driving and driving while intoxicated.
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.
Impaired Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcohol Content Lawyers Fairfax City
Impaired Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcohol Content Lawyers Fairfax City
AKANSHA v. TOWN OF CHRISTIANSBURG
Facts:
After the car he was driving was stopped, defendant exhibited several indicia of intoxication. Defendant challenged the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the punishments for driving under the influence of intoxicants and for impaired driving, that if it had a reasonable doubt as to the grade of offense that they should find defendant guilty of the lower grade, and what constituted impaired driving. The trial court, interpreting Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-56.1, ruled that, because there was no evidence of a blood test showing defendant’s blood-alcohol content to be between 0.10 and 0.15 percent, the offense of impaired driving could not be considered by the jury.
Impaired Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcohol Content Lawyers
Issue:
Whether under Code § 18.1-56.1, which makes impaired driving a lesser included offense of drunk driving, the defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed on the lesser offense although there was no evidence of a blood test?
Discussion:
The first paragraph of the statute creates and defines the offense of impaired driving. Under the language of the first clause of the second paragraph it is perfectly manifest that in every prosecution for driving while intoxicated. An accused may be convicted of the lesser included offense of impaired driving. While the second clause of the second paragraph provides that a presumption of impaired driving arises when the alcoholic content of a person’s blood is within a specified range, the language of the statute does not make evidence of blood-alcohol content within the specified range mandatory before the lesser offense can be considered. Hence in every prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants an accused is entitled to have the triers of fact consider the offense of impaired driving even though there is no evidence of the alcoholic content of his blood. We hold that under the provisions of Code § 18.1-56.1 the trial court erred in not granting the instructions requested by the defendant. The judgment of conviction is set aside and the case is reversed and remanded.
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
