Virginia Traffic Ticket Speeding Violation Attorneys Bath County
THOMAS SR. v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Defendant was charged with violating Code § 46.2-878. Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted him of speeding in violation of Code § 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.”
- Whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to strike?
- Whether the lesser-included offense be of a lower grade or carry a different potential penalty than the greater offense?
This Court found that, contrary to defendant’s assertion, there was no requirement that a lesser-included offense be of a lower grade or carry a different potential penalty than the greater offense. An offense was “lesser” if its elements were also elements of the “greater” offense. That the simple assault and battery is a lesser-included offense of sexual battery, both Class one misdemeanors under Code §§ 18.2-57 and 18.2-67.4(B), respectively. An offense is “lesser” if its elements are also elements of 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. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no error and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
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
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