Speeding Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Evidence Summons Offense
Speeding Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Evidence Summons Offense
Greener v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant challenged the judgment of the General District Court for the County of Fairfax (Virginia), which convicted defendant of speeding. The charge identified the location of the offense as one county, but at trial, defendant presented evidence that it occurred in a different county.
Speeding Fairfax Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant was guilty of speeding in the county as charged in the summons?
Discussions:
At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence and again at the conclusion of the trial, defendant moved to strike the evidence and dismiss the charge based upon the evidence presented that the offense had in fact occurred in a county other than the one indicated on the summons. On this point, the evidence of the Commonwealth and that of defendant were in conflict. At the conclusion of all of the evidence and after defendant moved to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence that the attorney for the Commonwealth moved to conform the summons to the evidence. The court reversed and held that under Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-137, a court’s discretion in amending or issuing a new warrant in order to conform the warrant to the proof was not unlimited. When the evidence was concluded and defendant’s motion to strike was made, the court was bound to take the warrant as it then read. Throughout the trial, defendant had challenged the venue of the prosecution and accordingly, under Va. Code Ann. § 19.1-244, any question of venue was not waived. The court concluded that the defendant was not guilty of speeding in the county as charged in the summons, and dismissed the 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.
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.
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.
Suspended License Virginia Restoration License Habitual Offender Attorneys Augusta County
Suspended License Virginia Restoration License Habitual Offender Attorneys Augusta County
MERCHANT V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
The motorist was determined to be a habitual traffic offender based on three predicate offenses of driving while his license was suspended or revoked. The evidence showed the predicate convictions resulted from his failure to pay fines and costs. Thereafter, the motorist filed a petition for restoration of his operator’s license. The Commonwealth opposed the petition on the grounds he was a habitual offender who had not answered a speeding citation.
Suspended License Virginia Restoration License Habitual Offender Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the operator’s license can be restored as the defendant has three predicate convictions?
Discussions:
The Commonwealth argued that restoration of the motorist’s operator’s license should not be permitted because, at the time of all three predicate convictions, he was also under suspension for failing to answer a speeding citation in another place. The motorist presented evidence that he had paid all outstanding fines and costs, including the one involving the speeding citation. The Commonwealth also asked that restoration be denied because of the motorist’s less than exemplary driving record.
When a person has been adjudged an habitual offender based solely upon convictions of driving on a suspended license for failure to pay fines and costs, he may petition the court at any time for restoration of this license upon proof that all outstanding fines and costs have been paid. In other words, there is no mandatory waiting period as in other habitual offender cases.
The court is of the opinion that the DMV suspension of Mr. Merchant’ licence under § 46.2-946 resulted from his failure to pay fines and costs in Arkansas. Arkansas notified DMV, even before Mr. Merchant was convicted, that Mr. Merchant had “failed to comply with the terms of the citation.” The terms of the citation with which Mr. Merchant failed to comply were, obviously, payment of fines and costs associated with that speeding citation.
Thus, at the time of the predicate convictions, all of Mr. Merchant’ suspensions were the result of failure to pay fines and costs. To hold otherwise would create an anomaly that the legislature surely did not intend: a person declared an habitual offender whose predicate offenses result from failure to pay fines and costs in Virginia courts would be eligible for immediate restoration upon proof that all outstanding fines and costs have been paid but if that person were under suspension for failure to pay an out-of-state citation, he would not be eligible for restoration even after he paid that fine and costs.
While acknowledging the many traffic violations on Mr. Merchant’ record, the court will not deny restoration for that reason in this case. Since Mr. Merchant was declared an habitual offender almost two years ago, he has accumulated no more violations, he has paid thousands of dollars in fines and costs, and he has attended a driving school to which he was assigned by DMV. The court will restore Mr. Merchant’ license under § 46.2-361(B).
Judgment:
The court ordered that the motorist’s license be restored.
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
