Dismissal Dinwiddie Virginia Speeding Ticket

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Seeking Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Virginia Lawyers

If you are seeking Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Attorneys

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.

Warner v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Commonwealth charged defendant with speeding under Dinwiddie County, Va., Code § 82-4-10, which tracked the language of and

substance of the comparable Virginia Code Annotated provisions. Defendant stipulated the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to convict him, but moved to dismiss

the § 82-4-10 charge because he was not provided an immediate hearing upon his request pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-936. Section 46.2-936 provided that a person

issued a summons for a violation of the traffic code which was punishable as a misdemeanor had a right to an immediate hearing. Defendant requested such a hearing by

noting it on the Virginia Uniform Summons of which both he and the officer had copies. However, the speeding infraction was not punishable as a misdemeanor, and, even

if it had been, the remedy for violation of the rights under § 46.2-936 would not have been dismissal of the charge.
If you are facing a traffic case in Dinwiddie, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • A person issued a summons for a violation of the traffic code which is punishable as a misdemeanor has a right to an immediate hearing. Va. Code Ann. §

    46.2-936. The remedy for violation of the rights under § 46.2-936 is not dismissal of the charge..

  • Constitutional violations may well require dismissal of the charges for violations. However, Virginia law has consistently held that exclusion or dismissal

    is not the remedy for violations of statutory rights.

Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Attorneys

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Using Radar Defense With Lidar Dinwiddie Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a Lidar based charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar In Virginia.

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.

Using Radar Defense With Lidar Richmond Lawyers Virginia Felony Motor Vehicle

Michael v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie (Virginia) that entered judgment in favor of appellee in an action alleging that

after appellant had been judged a habitual offender, he drove in such a manner as to endanger the life, limb, or property of another, a violation of Va. Code Ann. §

46.2-357(B)(2). With no proof as to whether the officer has caught the Appellant, using radar (Lidar), the Appellant took the defense that there was no evidence in the

record as to appellant’s actually driving.

If you are facing a criminal case in Dinwiddie, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-

7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • The reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible

    therefrom

  • Under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2) any person found to be an habitual offender under this article, who is thereafter convicted of driving a motor vehicle

    while the revocation determination is in effect shall be guilty of a felony if such driving of itself endangers the life, limb, or property of another or takes place

    while such person is in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, irrespective of whether the driving of itself endangers the life, limb or property of another and one of

    the offender’s underlying convictions is for Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-36.1, 18.2-266 or a parallel local ordinance

  • The reviewing court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar In Virginia.

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Dinwiddie Virginia School Bus Stop Law

Tags

, , , , , , ,

School Bus Stop Law Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a Virginia School Bus Stop Law Charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Virginia School Bus Stop Law Defense – Virginia Lawyers

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.

Justin v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The trial court convicted defendant under Virginia law for unlawfully operating a motor vehicle in a reckless manner. During

defendant’s trial for passing a school bus that was discharging passengers at the stop, defendant and another defense witness testified that they had not seen the bus.

Defense counsel asked two witnesses for the state how the markings on the bus conformed to the regulations of the State Board of Education (board). The trial court

held the questions were improper and immaterial. Defendant was convicted of unlawfully driving a motor vehicle in a reckless manner.

If you are facing a traffic case in Dinwiddie, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • One of the most zealously guarded rights in the administration of justice is that of cross-examining an adversary’s witnesses. In Virginia, in criminal

    cases, it is preserved to the accused by the constitutional guarantee of confrontation. A party called to testify for another, having an adverse interest, may be

    examined by such other party according to the rules applicable to cross-examination. This applies to criminal cases as well as to civil cases. It is only after the

    right of cross-examination has been substantially and fairly exercised that the allowance of further cross-examination becomes discretionary with the court. The right,

    when not abused, is an absolute right and not a mere privilege of a party against whom a witness testifies.

  • Except when modified by statute, the accused in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; the

    burden rests upon the Commonwealth to establish such guilt, and this burden never shifts. Every material element of the offense charged must be proved in order to find

    the defendant guilty.

Virginia School Bus Stop Law Defense – Virginia Lawyers

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Dinwiddie Virginia Driving On Suspended 10 Days Jail Offense

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Virginia Driving On Suspended Charge with a 10 day jail sentence – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a Virginia Driving On Suspended Charge with 10 day jail sentence in Virginia, contact our law firm

immediately for help.

Virginia Driving On Suspended Charge with 10 day jail sentence defense – Virginia Lawyers

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.

Mark v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant driver sought review of a judgment of the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie (Virginia), which found that Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391.2

(A), which suspended the driving license on the failure to submit to a breath test in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.3, was civil and remedial, and thus did not

violate constitutional double jeopardy. The Defendant had previously been sentenced to 10 days in jail for a traffic offense.

If you are facing a criminal case in Dinwiddie, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-

7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391.2(A) provides in pertinent part that if a person refuses to submit to a breath test in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.3,

    upon issuance of a warrant for driving while intoxicated in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 or for refusing to take a blood or breath test in violation of Va.

    Code Ann. § 18.2-268.3, his operator’s license shall be suspended immediately for seven days.

  • Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391.2(C) provides that any person whose operator’s license has been suspended under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391.2(A) may, during the

    period of the suspension, request the general district court where the arrest was made to review the suspension, and the request is given precedence over all other

    matters on the docket. If the person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the arresting officer did not have probable cause for the arrest or that the

    magistrate did not have probable cause to issue the warrant, the court shall rescind the suspension. Otherwise, the court shall affirm the suspension.

Virginia Driving On Suspended Charge with 10 day jail sentence defense – Virginia Lawyers

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Traffic Lawyer Dinwiddie Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Traffic Lawyer – Virginia

If you are concerned about a Traffic Case in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Traffic Case – Virginia Attorneys

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.

Walter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County (Virginia), defendant was convicted of a third or subsequent traffic

offense of driving on a suspended or revoked license and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to five years for unauthorized use and 12 months for driving

while suspended. Defendant appealed.

If you are facing a traffic case in Dinwiddie, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • Evidence of other crimes may be admissible if introduced to prove an element of the offense charged, or to prove any number of relevant facts, such as

    motive, intent, agency, or knowledge. Other crimes evidence may also be admissible when the charged crime is part of a general scheme and proof of that fact is

    relevant to prove an element of the offense, or to prove or explain how the crime was accomplished.

  • It is well settled that evidence of other crimes or bad acts of an accused is generally inadmissible in a criminal prosecution. The purpose of this rule is

    to prevent confusion of offenses, unfair surprise to the defendant and a suggestion of criminal propensity, thus preserving the presumption of innocence.

  • A nonconstitutional error is harmless if it plainly appears from the record and the evidence given at trial that the error did not affect the verdict. An

    error does not affect a verdict if a reviewing court can conclude, without usurping the jury’s fact finding function, that had the error not occurred, the verdict

    would have been the same.

Traffic Case – Virginia Attorneys

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Dinwiddie Virginia Hit Run Property Damage Charge

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Attorneys

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.

Walter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The driver sued by the passengers pled guilty to felony hit and run. The contribution statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34, was in

derogation of the common law and had to be strictly construed. Assuming, without deciding, that felony hit and run, under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-894, was a crime

involving moral turpitude, the actions of the driver which raised his conduct to one involving moral turpitude occurred after the vehicles collided, and the passengers

were injured and also caused damage to the property. Rather than finding that all of the driver’s actions, from driving to leaving the scene, were one continuous

course of conduct, it was better to let the trier of fact decide if the driver’s conduct involved moral turpitude. The driver did not have to be at fault in causing

the accident to be guilty of hit and run.

If you are facing a criminal case in Dinwiddie, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-

7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • A person does not have to be at fault in causing an accident to be guilty of hit and run. The moral turpitude in hit and run, excluding contribution under

    Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34, is mutually exclusive from a defendant’s allegedly negligent driving that resulted in the accident.

  • It is clear that under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34 contribution lies when the negligence of two or more wrongdoers (joint tortfeasors) cause an indivisible

    injury to one person. Contribution is available when the wrong results from negligence and involves no moral turpitude.

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Attorneys

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Dinwiddie Virginia State Law 46.2 862

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

State Law 46.2 862 Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a State Law 46.2 862 charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

State Law 46.2 862 defense in Virginia

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.

Commonwealth v. Smith

Facts:

Defendant appealed her conviction by the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie (Virginia) of reckless driving by speeding 70 miles per hour in a

45 miles-per-hour zone in Virginia State under Virginia Code Ann. § 46.2-862, following the denial of her motion to strike the evidence obtained by pacing to prove her

speed, alleging that pacing as per law was not a method for determining speed listed in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882 is a statute permitting the admissibility of evidence. It is not a statute of exclusion. It sanctions four types of scientific

    evidence that determine speed by eliminating the need to prove that the underlying scientific principle or technique of the measuring device is reliable.

  • Nothing in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882 suggests it is meant to limit the means for proving speed. The statute itself states that speed “may” be determined by

    the enumerated means. “The word “may” is prima facie permissive, importing discretion, but the courts construe it to be mandatory when it is necessary to accomplish

    the manifest purpose of the Virginia legislature. Even lay witness testimony has always been an acceptable method of the speed of a car. The statute does not prevent

    the Commonwealth from proving a vehicle’s speed by other methods.

  • One of the easiest methods of proving a vehicle’s speed is by pacing. This involves accurately determining the speed of one vehicle while proceeding at a

    constant distance from a second vehicle. If the distance between the two vehicles remains constant, the speed of the second vehicle must be the same as the known speed

    of the first vehicle. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-942 clearly contemplates the use of pacing as a method of determining a vehicle’s speed by authorizing the admission of

    calibration tests to prove the accuracy of an arresting officer’s speedometer.

State Law 46.2 862 defense in Virginia

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Police Prove Passed School Bus Dinwiddie Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus In Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Attorneys In Virginia

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.

Kenith v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appellant challenged his conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§

18.2-30, 18.2-36, entered in the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie (Virginia), claiming the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offense for which he had been

detained by the police. The Commonwealth was able to prove that if the appellant’s attention were not diverted, he would have seen the school bus signs and flashing

lights before he passed it. Judgment affirmed.

If you are facing a criminal case in Dinwiddie, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-

7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all

    reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The judgment of a trial court will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support it

  • Criminal negligence is the basis for involuntary manslaughter and has been defined as acting consciously in disregard of another person’s rights or acting

    with reckless indifference to the consequences, with the defendant aware, from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that his conduct probably would

    cause injury to another.

  • A defendant accused of criminal negligence must have had prior knowledge of specific conditions that would likely cause injury to others.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Attorneys In Virginia

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Dinwiddie Virginia 46.2-862

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a 46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving defense in Virginia

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.

James Peter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants and with speeding 55 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone.

Both charges grew out of the same driving activity. Defendant prepaid the speeding charge and claimed that Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862 converted his speeding charge to a

reckless driving charge. Defendant alleged that he was convicted of speeding by virtue of this payment of the fines and costs and therefore he could not be prosecuted

for the driving under the influence charge because Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1 prevented dual convictions of driving under the influence and reckless driving. On

review, the court disagreed holding that defendant’s argument required that he be charged with and convicted of reckless driving. The court stated that speeding was a

traffic infraction and reckless driving was a misdemeanor. In addition, the court determined that § 19.2-294.1 only applied if defendant was charged with driving under

the influence and reckless driving. The court held that where the evidence supported prosecution under two parallel statutes, the Commonwealth had the right to elect

under which statute to proceed.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

  • Under Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-69.40:1, it is not possible for a defendant to prepay the fine for a reckless driving charge as it is expressly forbidden by Va.

    Code Ann. § 16.1-69.40:1(d).

  • Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294 states that if a defendant is charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants and with reckless driving and he is

    convicted of one of those charges, then the court shall dismiss the remaining charge. The purpose of § 19.2-294 is to prevent the conviction of two different class one

    misdemeanors arising out of the same driving acts, when one of the misdemeanors is driving under the influence of intoxicants and the other is reckless driving. Where

    the evidence supports prosecution under either of two parallel statutes, the Commonwealth has the right to elect under which statute to proceed.

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving defense in Virginia

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Penalty Driving Suspended License Dinwiddie Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Penalty For Driving On A Suspended License – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about the Penalty For Driving On A Suspended License In Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Penalty For Driving On A Suspended License – Attorneys In Virginia

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.

Jessica v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The petitioner filed for restoration of her operator’s license, alleging that her status as a habitual offender was based on her

predicate convictions for driving on a suspended license resulting from failure to pay fines and costs as penalty for her driving offense. The prosecution asserted

that petitioner was ineligible for reinstatement of her driving privileges under Va. Code § 46.2-361(B).

If you are facing a traffic case in Dinwiddie, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • 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, or

    failure to provide proof of financial responsibility, that person may petition the court at any time for restoration of his or her license upon proof that all

    outstanding fines and costs have been paid or that proof of financial responsibility has been furnished. In other words, there is no mandatory waiting period.

  • A suspension of a driver’s license under Va. Code § 46.2-706 or Va. Code § 46.2-390.1 is not one of those suspensions which, when it is a basis of

    predicate convictions, enables a person to seek restoration upon payment of all fines and costs.

Penalty For Driving On A Suspended License – Attorneys In Virginia

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.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.