Reckless Driving Virginia DUI Charge Lawyers Appomattox County
Reckless Driving Virginia DUI Charge Lawyers Appomattox County
Rc. Hillary v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Facts:
Defendant said his two offenses grew out of the same act or acts of driving, and one charge should have been dismissed under Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1. Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Appomattox County (Virginia) of driving under the influence and reckless driving. He appealed.
Reckless Driving Virginia DUI Charge Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that defendant could be convicted for both driving under the influence and reckless driving?
Discussion:
The appellate court held the offenses of which defendant was convicted were covered by § 19.2-294.1, under which, when he was convicted of one of the charges, the remaining charge had to be dismissed if the offenses grew out of the same act or acts. His “offending conduct” was intimately related in time and distance, arising from and connected by one continuous, uninterrupted operation of his car. He was initially pursued because he was observed to be speeding. Although police subsequently lost sight of his car for three to five minutes, there was no evidence that he discontinued operation of his car before he was stopped. No evidence gave rise to any reasonable inference that he did anything other than engage in a continuous operation of his vehicle. The trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that he could be convicted for both driving under the influence and reckless driving for his continuous, uninterrupted course of operation of a motor vehicle. Defendant’s convictions were reversed and the matter was remanded with directions to dismiss one of the charges.
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 Virginia Drugs Cocaine Lawyers Brunswick County
Traffic Stop Virginia Drugs Cocaine Lawyers Brunswick County
Mc. RENOLD v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
A police officer observed a pickup truck with an inoperative brake light. He stopped the vehicle and intending to issue Ellis a summons for inoperative brake light. The officer recalled that Ellis and her passenger had a “previous narcotics history.” This conversation took about a minute. On his way back to his vehicle, the officer called for a canine narcotics unit to assist him. He then got back into his vehicle to issue the summons for the equipment violation. The canine narcotics unit arrived and searched Ellis and discovered cocaine. Ellis was convicted by the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach of possession of cocaine.
Traffic Stop Virginia Drugs Cocaine Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in fails to suppress the evidence of cocaine found on her person during a traffic stop?
Discussion:
The court held that “the officer’s one-minute conversation about drugs cannot be characterized as an exploitive, unconstitutional act. Where a seizure of a person is based on probable cause to believe that a traffic violation was committed, an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking a few questions about matters unrelated to the traffic violation, even if this conversation briefly extends the length of the detention. Ellis consented to a search while being detained by an officer having probable cause to issue her a citation for a malfunctioning brake light. The drug dog’s multiple alerts and Ellis’s subsequent consent took place before the officer completed the paperwork necessary for issuing a summons for the equipment violation. The brief, incremental delay caused by the officer’s questions regarding drugs did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, a fortiori, did not constitute an exploitive basis for securing Ellis’s consent.” This court finds that no error in trial court reasoning or result, affirmed the trial court 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.
Traffic Stop Virginia Drug Transaction Lawyers Carroll County
Traffic Stop Virginia Drug Transaction Lawyers Carroll County
HALLS V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
Defendant filed a motion to suppress on the basis that the initial stop of his automobile violated his constitutional rights under U.S. Const. amend. IV. At a hearing for defendant’s motion to suppress, police officers testified that they observed a vehicle pull up to a group of six to eight men. One of the men left the group and walked toward the vehicle. The man bent down, reached into the vehicle, removed his hand and walked back to the group. Believing that they had observed a drug transaction, the officers pulled the automobile over shortly after it left the group. The Commonwealth argued that the stop of defendant’s vehicle was a permissible stop under Terry v. Ohio, because the officers were trained to identify potential drug transactions. The court found that neither officer saw anything exchanged between the occupants of the vehicle or the man who left the group to approach the vehicle. The officers did not hear any conversation between the men and did not observe any suspicious activity in the vehicle.
Traffic Stop Virginia Drug Transaction Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the officer has sufficient specific objective facts to create a reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle may be involved in criminal activity?
Discussion:
The court determined that the facts did not create a reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle had engaged in criminal activity. Since the evidence was insufficient to justify stopping defendant’s vehicle, court concluded that defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The court granted defendant’s motion to suppress.
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 Traffic Violation Unlawful Driving Lawyers Louisa County
Suspended License Virginia Traffic Violation Unlawful Driving Lawyers Louisa County
JOHN V COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
Defendant “involved in a traffic violation” in Louisa County and issued him a summons for reckless driving. At the time, defendant had a valid operator’s license in his possession. The trooper later determined that defendant’s privileges to operate a motor vehicle had been suspended by an order of the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued on October 19, 1977. The trooper then obtained a warrant charging defendant with unlawfully operating “a motor vehicle on [a] public highway after his privilege to drive had been suspended.” Defendant sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Louisa County (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. Defendant was given a traffic citation for reckless driving, and had a valid driver’s license in his possession. The state trooper later determined that defendant’s license had been suspended at the time of the citation. The trooper obtained a warrant charging defendant with driving with a suspended license.
Suspended License Virginia Traffic Violation Unlawful Driving Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the language of the order accomplishes a suspension of defendant’s driver’s license?
Discussion:
At trial, defendant testified that he had not received notice that his license had been suspended, and the charge was dismissed. Defendant was later indicted for perjury, and the evidence adduced at trial showed that a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) employee had personally advised defendant that his license had been suspended, and the evidence further showed that a copy of the suspension order had been mailed to and received by defendant. Defendant was convicted and sought review. The court affirmed. Defendant argued that his statement was not false because the notice letter was so vague that it did not advise him that his license was suspended. The court found that the letter was a DMV form letter in which inapplicable terms had not been crossed out, but held that when viewed in its entirety, the letter was sufficient to notify defendant that his license was suspended. The court affirmed defendant’s conviction for perjury over his objection that he did not falsely state that he did not know his driver’s license was suspended because the DMV notice letter was so vague that it did not advise him of the suspension.
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.
Reckless Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcosensor Breath Test Lawyers Roanoke County
Reckless Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcosensor Breath Test Lawyers Roanoke County
NICHOLS BATA V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
Defendant sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, which convicted him of Reckless Driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant contended that the trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of the results of a preliminary alcosensor breath test.
Reckless Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcosensor Breath Test Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred by permitting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of the results of a preliminary alcosensor breath test?
Discussion:
The court finds that at trial, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence a certificate of refusal signed by Nichols. Nichols testified that he refused the test because he had performed well on the field test. To rebut that testimony the Commonwealth was permitted to introduce over Nichols’ objection the results of the preliminary alcosensor field test which showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% present. The Commonwealth specifically proffered the results, and the trial court limited their admission, to rebut Nichols’ testimony regarding the reason for refusing to submit to a blood or breath test. Although alcosensor results are otherwise inadmissible, Nichols opened the door for such admission by testifying that he had performed “fine” on the field test, thereby urging the court to find that he had acted reasonably. Since the evidence was admitted for the limited purpose to rebut Nichols’ claim that he had done “fine” on the test and thus that his refusal was reasonable, and not to prove that he drove under the influence, the trial court properly admitted the evidence and did not consider it for an improper purpose.
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 Habitual Offender Traffic Ticket Lawyers Prince William County
Suspended License Virginia Habitual Offender Traffic Ticket Lawyers Prince William County
JOHNNIE EDWARD ESTES v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
In this case, Johnnie Edward Estes, the defendant, was declared by the trial court to be an habitual offender under the Virginia Habitual Offender Act (Code §§ 46.1-387.1 to 46.1-387.12). This finding was based upon a conviction of driving under the influence in 1964 and convictions of driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license in 1968. Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Prince William 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 Habitual Offender Traffic Ticket Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s two prior convictions having resulted from offenses occurring at the same time, arose “out of separate acts” within the meaning of Code § 46.1-387.2 and count as second and third convictions of the defendant, thereby constituting him a habitual offender?
Discussion:
This court held that it is clear that the defendant’s 1968 conviction of driving under the influence was not barred, under Code § 19.1-259, by his contemporaneous conviction of driving on a suspended license, or vice versa. This is so because the 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. Since it was not the “same act” that gave rise to violation of the two statutes under which the defendant was convicted in 1968, it follows that the two convictions arose” out of separate acts” one out of the act of driving under the influence and the other out of the act of driving on a suspended license. Therefore, the convictions must be counted individually as second and third convictions, thereby constituting the defendant an habitual offender. This court hence affirmed the judgment convicting the defendant.
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.
Traffic Accident Virginia Strong Odor Blood Alcohol Lawyers Russell County
Traffic Accident Virginia Strong Odor Blood Alcohol Lawyers Russell County
TERRY JOE LYLE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
On March 24, 2004 at 7:53 a.m., the Virginia State Police received a telephone call from a citizen reporting a traffic accident on Castlewood Run Road in Russell County. State Trooper J.D. Anderson found a car suspended across a creek adjacent to the highway. The engine was running, and the car was still in gear with the driver’s side door open. There was no one in the car or in the vicinity. Trooper Anderson drove approximately three hundred feet down the road and saw Lyle standing in the middle of the road. When he approached Lyle, Trooper Anderson noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from Lyle. He also testified that Lyle’s speech was extremely slurred. Trooper Anderson initially asked Lyle to perform some field sobriety tests, but stopped after concluding that Lyle was so unsteady that it would be unsafe for him to attempt to perform any of the tests. At trial, Lyle objected to the introduction of the blood test results arguing that he had not been arrested prior to his blood being drawn at the hospital. More than three hours after the accident, the officer served defendant with a uniform traffic summons for driving under the influence. The trial court overruled the objection and permitted introduction of the blood test results, which showed Lyle’s blood alcohol content was 0.23% by weight by volume. The jury found defendant guilty of driving under the influence as a fourth or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. Defendant appealed.
Traffic Accident Virginia Strong Odor Blood Alcohol Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court error in admitting into evidence the results of the analysis?
Discussion:
There was overwhelming evidence introduced at trial showing that Lyle was under the influence of alcohol. When Trooper Anderson stopped Lyle, Anderson detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from Lyle. On cross-examination, Trooper Anderson described Lyle as “extremely drunk” and Lyle’s speech as “extremely slurred” and “difficult to understand.” Based on this record, we conclude the verdict would have been the same in the absence of the blood test results. Even if admission into evidence of the blood test results was error because defendant was not arrested within three hours of driving under the influence, the error was harmless; it held that other evidence of defendant’s intoxication was so compelling that any error in admitting the blood test results did not affect the outcome.
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.
Virginia Traffic Ticket Public Highway Speed Limit Attorneys Loudoun County
Virginia Traffic Ticket Public Highway Speed Limit Attorneys Loudoun County
THOMAS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FACTS:
Deputy Klatch was monitoring west-bound traffic on a public highway. The posted speed limit on that portion of the highway was fifty miles per hour, although elsewhere on the same road the posted speed limit was fifty-five miles per hour. Klatch recorded Thomas speed at sixty-seven miles per hour and initiated a traffic stop. He issued Thomas a summons charging him with a violation of Code § 46.2-878. Thomas was charged with violating Code § 46.2-878. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of Loudoun County (Virginia) convicted him of speeding in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-870. Defendant appealed. On appeal he contends the trial court erred when it failed to grant his motion to strike because there can be no lesser included offenses of a traffic violation.
Virginia Traffic Ticket Public Highway Speed Limit Attorneys
ISSUES:
- The issue to be decided here is whether traffic infractions are treated like criminal offenses and other charges and can one be construed as a lesser-included offense of another.
DISCUSSION:
A traffic infraction, while not criminal in nature, is a violation of law punishable as provided in § 46.2-113, which is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, Code § 46.2-100. As such, traffic infractions are punishable by a fine of not more than that provided for a Class 4 misdemeanor under § 18.2-11. Code § 46.2-113. Additionally, under Code § 46.2-937, for purposes of arrest, traffic infractions shall be treated as misdemeanors. Thus, for certain purposes, traffic infractions are treated like criminal offenses and other charges and nothing precludes one being a lesser-included offense of another.
Thomas also asserts that for an offense to be lesser included of another, it must be of lesser magnitude of the other. However, whether one offense is a lesser included offense of the other depends upon whether the elements of the greater offense necessarily include all elements of the lesser. A lesser included offense is an offense which is composed entirely of elements that are also elements of the greater offense. An offense is not a lesser included offense of another if each offense contains an element that the other does not. Contrary to Thomas’s assertion, there is no requirement that a lesser-included offense be of a lower grade or carry a different potential penalty than the greater offense. The potential punishment accorded each offense is immaterial to the determination of whether one offense is a lesser-included offense of another.
DECISION:
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.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
Former State Trooper
