Posts Tagged ‘Criminal Act’
Attorneys Defending Clients Charged With Robbery/Carjacking
Defending Robbery/Carjacking Cases in State & Federal Courts
Licensed in Virginia, Maryland, D.c., Pennsylvania & Massachusetts
The law deems robbery as one of the most violent crimes a person can commit. Robbery is a criminal act. When a person seizes the property of another through violence or intimidation, then the person may be charged with robbery. A person who commits robbery is called a robber. Generally, some form of violence is used in the commission of a robbery.
Robbery combined with the use of a weapon is classified as armed robbery. The law punishes those who commit armed robbery very harshly.
Carjacking is a form of robbery. The item that is stolen in a carjacking is the automobile itself. Again, this is a crime of violence and almost every state in the United States imposes a very harsh penalty on those who are convicted of carjacking.
Robbing a bank that is federally insured is a federal crime.
The criminal defense attorneys of SRIS, P.C. defend clients charged with robbery, armed robbery and carjacking .
The Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. has offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts
-
The offices in Virginia are in Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Lynchburg, Manassas, Richmond & Virginia Beach.
-
The offices in Maryland are in Rockville & Baltimore.
-
The office in Massachusetts is in Boston.
If you wish to see the laws of states we have offices in, regarding robbery or carjacking, please click on the state:
Please contact us if you are charged with any of the above. You can contact a criminal defense attorney of SRIS, P.C. by calling our toll free number: 888-437-7747, email or our fast on line form . A criminal defense lawyer from our firm will discuss the allegations with you and advise you as to how we can best help you.
Our criminal defense attorneys and staff in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts speak the additional languages besides English: Spanish, French, Tamil, Arabic, Hindi, Telugu, Cantonese, Mandarin & Malaysian.
Our attorneys are licensed to defend robbery/carjacking cases in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania & Massachusetts, however we defend robbery/carjacking only in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.
Please click on attorneys to learn more about the criminal defense lawyers who assist clients with robbery/carjacking defense in Virginia, Maryland or Massachusetts.
MASSACHUSETTS, MARYLAND & VIRGINIA CREDIT CARD THEFT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
Defense of Credit Card Fraud in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts
Credit Card fraud in Virginia, credit card fraud in Maryland & credit card fraud in Massachusetts are treated as a very serious crimes.
Credit card fraud occurs when a person fraudulently obtain, takes, signs, uses, sells, buys or forges someone else’s credit or debit card or their card information. Another form of credit card fraud is selling something to someone knowing that the credit card being used to pay for the item or services is illegally obtained or being used without authorization.
Each time a credit card or debit card transaction occurs without authorization of the real owner can constitute as a new criminal act in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts. Thus, if an illegally obtained credit card is used for five different transactions, each transaction is criminal act. Therefore, each of five transactions can result in a separate charge in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.
Due to the high rate of credit card fraud in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts, unlike other types of theft crimes, in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts, regardless of the value of the transaction, each transaction is usually classified as a felony.
If you wish to speak with a Maryland, Massachusetts & Virginia criminal credit card fraud defense attorney, please call us at 888-437-7747, email us or contact us via our fast on line form.
The Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. have offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.
If you wish to speak with a Virginia credit card fraud defense attorney, Maryland credit card fraud defense attorney & Massachusetts credit card fraud defense attorney please call us at 888-437-7747 or contact us via our fast on line form.
Our Maryland, Massachusetts & Virginia attorneys who provide credit card fraud defense and staff in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts speak the following languages in addition to English: Spanish, French, Arabic, Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Cantonese, Mandarin & Malaysian.
Our attorneys are licensed to defend credit card fraud, credit card forgery, credit card theft in Virginia, Maryland, D.C. & Massachusetts; however we defend credit card theft, credit card forgery & credit card fraud only in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts at the present time.
Please click on attorneys to learn more about the criminal defense lawyers who assist clients with credit card fraud offenses in Virginia, Maryland or Massachusetts.
VIRGINIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
DEFENDING VIRGINIA TELEPHONE THREAT CASES & VIRGINIA CURSE & ABUSE CHARGES
In Virginia, any person who uses threatening or profane language over the public airways including telephones, radios, CBs can be charged with a criminal act. Also, any person who uses curse words to another that is reasonably likely to provoke an act of violence can be charged with a crime. These are serious offenses that carry life changing consequences. The Virginia law offices of SRIS, P.C. have a number of excellent Virginia telephone threat defense attorneys and curse and abuse defense lawyers in its offices in Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Lynchburg, Manassas, Richmond, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. For more information or to make an appointment with SRIS, P.C., please call, send an e-mail or complete the on-line form.
|
FAIRFAX OFFICE: |
RICHMOND OFFICE: |
|
MANASSAS OFFICE: |
VIRGINIA BEACH OFFICE: |
|
LYNCHBURG OFFICE: |
To obtain a general overview of telephone threat & curse & abuse defense, please click here.
To learn more about the laws pertaining to telephone threat & curse & abuse defense in Maryland or Massachusetts, please click on the state.
The following are some of the different curse & abuse and telephone threat charges in the Commonwealth of Virginia:
VA Code § 18.2-416. Punishment for using abusive language to another
If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
VA Code § 18.2-427. Use of profane, threatening or indecent language over public airways
If any person shall use obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, over any telephone or citizens band radio, in this Commonwealth, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
VA Code § 18.2-429. Causing telephone to ring with intent to annoy
Any person who, with or without intent to communicate but with intent to annoy any other person, causes any telephone or digital pager, not his own, to ring or to otherwise signal, and any person who permits or condones the use of any telephone under his control for such purpose shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
Any person who, with or without intent to converse, but with intent to annoy, harass, hinder or delay emergency personnel in the performance of their duties as such, causes a telephone to ring, which is owned or leased for the purpose of receiving emergency calls by a public or private entity providing fire, police or emergency medical service, and any person who knowingly permits the use of a telephone under his control for such purpose, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The Virginia attorneys and Law Offices of SRIS, P.C., is located in Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Lynchburg, Manassas, Richmond & Virginia Beach but our sphere of activity is statewide. Our Virginia Telephone Threat defense lawyers and Curse & Abuse attorneys and staff speak various languages, including English, Tamil, Spanish, French, Hindi, Cantonese, Mandarin, and Telugu.
For more information or to make an appointment with SRIS, P.C., please call, send an e-mail or complete the on-line form.
In this case, the court ruled that it is up to the trier of fact to determine whether the person who received the alleged threat believed a threat was indeed made.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Matthew Dean WYATT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
No. 0554-97-3.
March 24, 1998.
“Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged after conviction, it is our duty to consider it in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and give it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.” Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). So viewed, the evidence proved that on August 8, 1996, Wyatt placed several telephone calls to the residence of James Allen Mills, Jr. Mills had known Wyatt for about six months and recognized Wyatt’s voice from many conversations with Wyatt both in person and over the telephone. Mills was acquainted with Wyatt because Wyatt had dated Mills’ daughter. Mills disapproved of Wyatt dating his daughter, and, on a prior occasion, when Wyatt and Mills’ daughter were living together, Mills had tried to get them to separate.
Mills answered four or five of Wyatt’s telephone calls. During each of the calls, Wyatt asked to speak with Mills’ daughter. Each time, Mills refused to allow Wyatt to talk to his daughter. During Wyatt’s last telephone call to the Mills’ residence, Wyatt told Mills that he would “just have to come down there and whip your fat ass and burn your house down.” After Wyatt hung up the telephone, Mills immediately dialed a telephone code to determine the location from which Wyatt was calling. However, because the call came from out of state, the telephone service could not provide the telephone number. Four days later, Mills sought a warrant for Wyatt’s arrest.
The trial judge found that Wyatt made a threat to burn Mills’ residence as proscribed by the statute and convicted Wyatt.
II.
In pertinent part, Code § 18.2-83 states that “[a]ny person … who makes and communicates to another by any means any threat to bomb, burn, destroy or in any manner damage any place of assembly, building or other structure, or any means of transportation … shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.” Noting that the language of the statute “is not vague,” this Court has ruled that “[a] threat, in the criminal context, is recognized to be a communication avowing an intent to injure another’s person or property.” Perkins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 7, 16, 402 S.E.2d 229, 234 (1991).
Code § 18.2-83 does not require the Commonwealth to prove that Wyatt intended to carry out his threat to burn Mills’ house. Proof that the threat was made and communicated satisfies the statutory requirements. See Parnell v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 342, 346, 423 S.E.2d 834, 837 (1992). However, this Court has construed the statute to require proof that the threat to burn was malicious and “reasonably cause[d] the receiver to believe that the speaker will act according to his expression of intent.” Perkins, 12 Va.App. at 15-16, 402 S.E.2d at 234.
*2 The evidence proved that Wyatt and Mills had an antagonistic relationship stemming from Wyatt’s contact with Mills’ daughter. Mills’ refusal to allow Wyatt to talk to Mills’ daughter angered Wyatt. When Wyatt threatened to burn Mills’ home, Wyatt also expressed hostility toward Mills by threatening to assault Mills. This evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wyatt’s threat to burn Mills’ house was maliciously made. “Malice inheres in the doing of a wrongful act intentionally, or without just cause or excuse, or as a result of ill will … [, and i]t may be directly evidenced by words.” Dawkins v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 55, 61, 41 S.E.2d 500, 503 (1947).
Wyatt argues that Mills’ delay in seeking a warrant proves Mills was unconcerned about the threat. We disagree. Whether Mills reasonably believed that Wyatt intended to burn Mills’ home was a question of fact for the trial judge. See Bennett v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 228, 233, 380 S.E.2d 17, 20 (1989). The evidence in the record supports the finding that Mills’ belief was reasonable.
The evidence proved that Mills did take the threat seriously. Unlike several prior telephone conversations of that day, Mills attempted to locate Wyatt after the threat was made. Wyatt’s threat to assault Mills, the animus between the men, and Mills’ attempt to locate the place from which Wyatt called are sufficient to prove that Mills’ belief was reasonable and that Mills was concerned about the threat.
Furthermore, Mills’ delay in obtaining the warrant was a matter going toward Mills’ credibility, an issue for the trier of fact. See Love v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 84, 90, 441 S.E.2d 709, 713 (1994). Mills’ delay of four days to obtain a warrant is not conduct that necessarily evidenced that Mills did not believe Wyatt would act on the statement.
Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wyatt’s conduct was in violation of Code § 18.2-83.
Affirmed.
Va.App.,1998.
In this case, the defendant was given a suspended sentence for crimes he had previously committed. He was accused of violating the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence for making threatening telephone calls. The Court after viewing the actions of the defendant determined he had in fact violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence and convicted him.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
David Martin WOODRUFF
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
No. 1958-94-3.
Feb. 13, 1996.
1 David Martin Woodruff (appellant) was adjudged, in a bench trial, of having violated the conditions of a suspended sentence. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of threats made against individuals other than those named in the order suspending his sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
On April 28, 1994, appellant pled guilty to four counts of destruction of property, two counts of making threatening telephone calls, and one count of making a false report of a crime to a law enforcement officer. The trial court sentenced him to forty-eight months in jail, suspending forty-two months conditioned on good behavior and on appellant having no contact with Teri Borkowski (Borkowski), Kyle Mohr (Mohr), Nicole Swann, and Lorie Ann Shelley (the victims of his crimes).
On May 9, 1994, the court issued a show cause summons for appellant to appear and show cause why his suspended sentence should not be reinstated. Before the show cause hearing, appellant filed notice of his intent to rely on an incompetency defense. At the show cause hearing on September 7, 1994, Borkowski testified that, on May 3, 1994, she received messages from appellant on her answering machine. The messages threatened Borkowski and Mohr, and a recording indicated that the calls originated from the Montgomery County Jail. Mohr testified that he received similar messages on his answering machine. Joe Francis testified that appellant gave him the telephone numbers of Borkowski and Mohr, and told him to call them and make threats.
The Commonwealth called Montgomery County Deputy Daniel Levesque (Levesque) to testify that appellant made threatening remarks regarding Borkowski, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, and the Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney. Appellant objected, arguing that any threats against the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney were irrelevant to the conditions of his suspended sentences. FN1 The Commonwealth argued that the threats were admissible to counter appellant’s mitigation evidence. The trial court ruled that Levesque could testify that appellant made threats against persons other than Borkowski or Mohr, but that he could not identify the objects of those threats . Appellant made no further objection.
FN1. On appeal, appellant also argues that Levesque’s testimony was inadmissible evidence of other bad acts and that the Commonwealth was required to provide advance disclosure of its intent to present such evidence. These specific arguments were not raised before the trial court and are barred by Rule 5A:18.
Appellant denied making any threatening calls or asking Francis to do so. The trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. The court allowed appellant to present the testimony of a psychologist and his father as mitigation evidence, but imposed the suspended forty-two month sentence.
“Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to establish a fact at issue in the case.” Ragland v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 913, 918, 434 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1993). Evidence of appellant’s threatening remarks was clearly relevant to prove whether he had violated the good behavior requirement of his suspended sentence. Additionally, “hearsay evidence, which would normally be inadmissible in a criminal trial, may be admitted into evidence in a revocation hearing based on the court’s discretion.” Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 81, 84, 402 S.E.2d 684, 686 (1991). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Levesque to testify that appellant made threats against persons other than Borkowski and Mohr.
*2 Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Va.App.,1996.
We Are a Designated Debt Relief Agency under Federal Law. We Provide Legal Assistance to Consumers Seeking Relief Under the Bankruptcy Code.
VIRGINIA RECKLESS DRIVING EXPLAINED BY FORMER VIRGINIA PROSECUTOR
Virginia reckless driving tickets can be issued for fourteen (14) different types of driving behavior in Virginia. Our Virginia reckless driving attorneys will explain the different Virginia reckless driving violations and the penalties that each of the different Virginia reckless driving charges carry. A Virginia reckless driving conviction can result in either a misdemeanor or felony conviction. Most people who are charged with reckless driving in Virginia do not realize that reckless driving is a criminal act and therefore can result in an actual jail term in addition to a loss of driving privileges and high fines. If a death were to occur as a result of reckless driving violation in Virginia, then a person may be convicted of a felony and thereafter be classified as a convicted felon. If a felony conviction were to occur, then in addition to any actual prison confinement, the person will also lose a significant number of their constitutional rights. Since a Virginia reckless driving conviction is a criminal act, a person may become ineligible for certain professions such as a police officer, airline pilot, etc. Even, security clearances may be jeopardized as a result of a conviction.
Clients are always counseled to take a Virginia reckless driving uniform summons seriously. A lot of drivers do not realize that a Virginia reckless driving summons carries with it a promise to appear in court. The first time most people realize that a reckless driving charge in Virginia has a mandatory appearance component is when the Virginia police officer or Virginia state trooper advises them that by virtue of the fact that they are signing the Virginia reckless driving summons, they are promising to appear on the court date stated on the uniform summons. For most out of state drivers, this is yet another onerous factor of being charged with a Virginia reckless driving violation.
If convicted of a reckless driving charge in Virginia, it is at a minimum a class one (1) misdemeanor pursuant to section 18.2-11 of the Virginia Code and at the maximum in reckless driving violations resulting in death, a class six (6) felony pursuant to section 18.2-10 of the Code of Virginia. For most people, it is hard to comprehend that what is normally considered a serious traffic offense at worst in most states is a criminal act in Virginia. Frequently, drivers who possess a CDL or juveniles who are charged with a Virginia reckless driving violation are incredulous that they are facing such severe consequences for a first time offense of reckless driving in Virginia.
Another fact that most people do not realize about a charge of reckless driving in Virginia is the disparity in the way different counties in Virginia dispose of reckless driving offenses. Some Virginia counties may be so lenient as to allow a person who is charged with this offense to attend driving/traffic school for dismissal whereas another Virginia county will not even consider the option of traffic school. However, a number of jurisdictions are starting to take a standard position as to the disposition of Virginia reckless driving offenses and it is unfortunately not the lenient approach.
The following are some of the different Virginia reckless driving offenses as explained by a former prosecutor. Every single one of these offenses will result in six DMV demerit points on the operator’s driving record and may remain on the person’s driving record for as long as 11 years.
Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-862 is the statute that addresses driving in excess of the speed limit. This statute has two different ways it can violated:
-
Driving a motor vehicle on the highways of the Commonwealth at a speed of twenty miles per hour or
-
Driving in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.
Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-852 codifies the essence of reckless driving and is the catch-all general rule. This statute does not take into account the speed the vehicle is traveling. A number of Virginia Courts have held that “the essence of the offense of reckless driving lies not in the act of operating a vehicle, but in the manner and circumstances of its operation.” Any driving behavior on a highway that endangers the life, limb or property of any person shall be reckless driving.
Simply driving a vehicle that is not under proper control due to faulty brakes can result in a person being charged with a violation of Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-853.
Driving with too many passengers in car may cause an officer to charge the driver with a violation of Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-855 if the officer believes that number of passengers in the car is causing the driver’s view to be obstructed or interferes with the driver’s control of the vehicle.
If two motor vehicles travel abreast of each other in a single lane, this is a violation of Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-857.
One of the most commonly charged offenses during rush hour traffic in the morning is the passing of a stopped school bus that is loading or unloading children. Passing a stopped school bus in violation of Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-859 is viewed very dimly by judges due to the danger it poses to the children.
Something as minor as failing to give adequate and timely signals can result in being charged with Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-860 . It is very important to give proper signals when making a turn, slowing down or stopping when traveling on the highway.
Always keep in mind that even if the speed limit is 55 mph or 60 mph on most of the highways in the Commonwealth, it is still important to take into account the traffic and weather conditions of any road that you are traveling on. Even if you are not exceeding the speed limit, but the trooper believes you are traveling in a manner such that it exceed a reasonable speed based on the circumstances and traffic conditions at the time, you can be charged with Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-861.
Any driving behavior that endangers life, limb or property of any person on a driveway of a church, school, recreational facility or business property that is open to the public or industrial establishment is violation of Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-864.
One of the most severely prosecuted offenses is racing. Police target minors aggressively and the courts are very handed when sentencing individuals who are convicted of racing in violation of Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-865 . The law provides that in addition to any other penalties provided by law, the driver’s license of the person convicted of racing shall (meaning mandatory) be suspended by the court for not less than six months and may be suspended for up to two years. Additionally, if the prosecutor can prove to the court that the driver broke the law by engaging in a race in violation of Virginia Code Section 46.2-865 and did so in a manner so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life, causes seriously bodily injury to another person, the driver can be convicted of a class 6 felony pursuant to Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-865.1. The statute requires the person to have their license suspended for no less than one year and no more than three years. Even a person who aids or abets any such race may be convicted of a class one misdemeanor pursuant to Virginia reckless driving code section 46.2-866. Violation of Virginia Code Section 46.2-865 can also result in having that person’s vehicle seized and disposed of pursuant to VA reckless driving code section 46.2-867.
VA reckless driving code section 46.2-868 is the statute that codifies the additional penalties of a conviction of the Virginia reckless driving offenses.
If you have been charged with a Virginia reckless driving violation in the Virginia general district court or Virginia juvenile district court, please do not wait to find out what penalties the Virginia court may impose on you. Secure the services of an extremely experienced Virginia reckless driving lawyer who is experienced at defending clients charged with this type of a driving offense. If you wish to retain the services of Mr. Sris, who is a former prosecutor or any of the other highly skilled attorneys of SRIS, P.C. contact the Law Offices of SRIS, P.C today by phone, email or on line form . You can be assured that you will benefit from having a Virginia reckless driving lawyer who really understands the law, the court system and is in court almost everyday defending clients charged with similar charges. Don’t let a Virginia reckless driving ticket cause you to lose your job or liberty. SRIS, P.C. has six offices in Virginia. They are located in Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Lynchburg, Prince William, Richmond & Virginia Beach.
RECKLESS DRIVING, VA DEFENSE
Charged With Reckless Driving in VA?
Reckless Driving Defense From Our Offices in Fairfax, Lynchburg, Manassas, Richmond & Virginia Beach
The following is a discussion of some of the different ways a person who is driving in Virginia may be given a reckless driving ticket in VA. If the following scenarios seem all too familiar, take comfort in the fact that you are not the only person to ever have received a Virginia reckless driving ticket. Drivers all throughout Virginia are frequently given tickets for reckless driving in Virginia.
This isn’t a trivial offense. A Virginia reckless driving charge is a very serious moving violation. In fact, it is a class 1 misdemeanor in Virginia. You ask what a class one misdemeanor is. A Virginia class 1 misdemeanor is the highest level of misdemeanor criminal act a person can be convicted of in Virginia. The maximum statutory penalty for a Virginia class 1 misdemeanor in Virginia is up to twelve (12) months in jail, and or up to a $2500 fine. There are even more potential headaches of being convicted of a reckless driving charge in Virginia. You could lose your license for up to six months, lose your job because you were convicted of reckless driving or even lose your security clearance. You can be charged and convicted of reckless driving, even on federal property such as the George Washington Parkway commonly referred to as the GW Parkway, the military bases such as Fort Belvoir, Quantico Marine Base, federal parks, etc.
It can happen in a mere instant. Most people who are charged with reckless driving in Virginia are amazed how easily they can be charged with this offense. Perhaps you’re distracted and you are simply not paying attention to your speed. Next thing you know, you are being charged with reckless driving for traveling in excess of twenty (20) miles over the speed limit (VA Reckless Driving 46.2-862).
Who doesn’t recall going out for a drive on a beautiful sunny day with not many cars on a clear stretch of road and mistakenly traveling in excess of eighty (80) miles per hour? Suddenly you hear the sound of a siren behind you and realize you are being told to pull over. You pull over to the shoulder and the trooper walks up to your car and asks you “Do you know how fast you were going?” If you are like most people, you know you might have gone a little too fast, but you are not sure of your exact speed. Unfortunately, the police officer has clocked your speed by lidar or radar. You tell him you are sorry and ask if he could cut you a break this time. The trooper does not respond to your plea and writes you a Virginia uniform summons for driving in excess of 80 miles per hour regardless of the posted speed limit. You realize as you sign for your Virginia reckless driving ticket, you just received a ticket for reckless driving in violation of VA Reckless Driving 46.2-862. As you sit on the side of the road and look at the ticket, you realize the day is not so beautiful anymore and you now have to go to court. You cannot prepay this ticket.
Your mind is elsewhere and you inadvertently move into another car’s lane of travel causing that driver to swerve. Next thing you know, you are being pulled over for reckless driving. The state trooper charges you with violation of VA Reckless Driving Code Section 46.2-852. This violation is the catchall version of reckless driving in Virginia.
On a side road & about to get on a busy highway – you didn’t bring your car to a full stop before entering the freeway. This is a violation of the VA Reckless Driving 46.2-863.
You are in a rush to work and you pass a stopped school bus loading some children. Next thing you know, you are being stopped for passing a stopped school bus and receive a Virginia citation for reckless driving in violation of 46.2-859. You know that you are good person and that you would never intentionally pass a stopped school bus. You even have children of your own. The bad news is the police officer doesn’t care whether you are good person or not or whether you have children of your own. Neither does the judge. The bottom line is as far as the court, the cop and the prosecutor are concerned, you broke the law in Virginia regarding reckless driving.
Can you imagine being charged with reckless driving in Virginia simply because the police officer observed you spinning your wheels before you entered the main road? You know you did not intentionally spin your wheels. Why should you be blamed for the fact that the road was wet? Unfortunately, spinning your wheels before entering a main road is a potential violation of a reckless driving law in Virginia.
Remember doing doughnuts in an empty parking lot and having a police officer coming by and at worst telling you to get out of there. Unfortunately today, juveniles don’t have it so lucky and they will probably get charged with reckless driving in Virginia. For that matter, even an adult can receive a Virginia uniform summons for reckless driving in violation of VA Reckless Driving 46.2-864 for driving in a reckless manner in a parking lot, if the officer believes that the driver endangered life, limb or property.
Recently, police officers have been charging a lot of young drivers with racing. Racing in Virginia is a form of reckless driving (VA Reckless Driving 46.2-865), which carries even more serious consequences and penalties than reckless driving by speed (46.2-862). VA Reckless Driving 46.2-865 states the following shall occur in regards to the enhanced penalties if a person is convicted of racing: When any person is convicted of reckless driving for racing, in addition to any other penalties provided by law the driver’s license of such person shall be suspended by the court for a period of not less than six months nor more than two years. In case of conviction the court shall order the surrender of the license to the court where it shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of § 46.2-398.
In Virginia, you can even be charged with reckless driving if the prosecutor can prove that you had faulty or defective brakes and this resulted in the driver not being able to maintain proper control. (VA Reckless Driving 46.2-853)
Simply driving too fast (highly subjective standard) for traffic conditions can result in being charged with reckless driving in Virginia in violation VA Reckless Driving 46.2-861.
Turn without giving the proper signal and you can be charged with reckless driving in Virginia. That means you make a left hand turn and fail to turn on your left turn blinker and lo and behold you may be charged with reckless driving in violation of VA Reckless Driving 46.2-860.
Please keep in mind, that if you are stopped by the police, each and every one of these situations can bring a charge of reckless driving in Virginia.
And according to the law, causing actual harm or damage isn’t necessary – it’s the driving behavior that counts.
Straightforward Legal Advice from a SRIS, P.C. lawyer who defends reckless driving.
If you’ve been charged with reckless driving in Virginia, we urge you to seek legal representation. At SRIS, P.C. our experienced VA reckless driving defense attorneys will give you a realistic picture of what you may face in court. We’ll be honest and upfront with you, spelling out the implications of having the case plea bargained vs. taking the matter to trial.
We will discuss some, if not all of the following issues regarding your case:
- your driving record and the impact it can have on the disposition of your case.
- how old or new your car is and whether you may have speedometer calibration issues,
- whether you encountered a situation that was an emergency and therefore you acted instinctively
- the marking on the school bus and whether the marking on the school bus meets the criteria stated in the Code
- what the weather conditions were at the time of the alleged offense
- whether there was some kind of physical barrier that obstructed your view of the school bus
- whether the accident was actually a result of reckless driving
- how did the officer measure your speed: radar, pace, lidar
- can the officer prove that his equipment was properly calibrated per the code
- whether you knew that your brakes were faulty or your speedometer was not working properly prior to being charged, etc.
The VA reckless driving attorneys of the Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. have been very successful in negotiating plea bargains on behalf of our clients charged with reckless driving in Virginia, if we determine that the client interest’s would be best served by plea bargaining vs. taking the case to trial. However, the client is the only one who can determine what is best for them and we always defer to our clients regarding plea bargaining vs. trial.
Need to consult with one of our VA reckless driving lawyers? Please don’t hesitate to call us at (888) 437 7747, or by email or via our on line form .
In Virginia, our offices in Northern Virginia are located in Fairfax & Manassas (703) 278-0405. In Central Virginia , our office is in Fredericksburg & Richmond (804) 201-9009 & in the Hampton Roads/Tidewater area , our office is in Virginia Beach (757) 512-5002. Our office that serves the clients of Southwest Virginia, Shenandoah Valley, parts of Southern Piedmont & Central Virginia is our Lynchburg Office. It is centrally located to better serve the clients in the western part of Virginia.
Our VA reckless driving defense lawyers and staff in Virginia, speak the following languages in addition to English: Tamil, Arabic, Spanish, Hindi, Telugu, Cantonese, Mandarin, Malaysian & French.
The following case provides an excellent analysis of what constitutes reckless driving in violation Virginia Code Section 45.2-852. The following is some of the Court’s analysis and conclusion:
25 Va.App. 352, 488 S.E.2d 651
Court of Appeals of Virginia,
Richmond.
Linda Eugene HALL
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Record No. 1782-96-2.
Aug. 5, 1997.
Linda Eugene Hall (appellant) appeals from her bench trial conviction by the Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell for violation of Code § 46.2-852 (reckless driving). The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant drove a vehicle recklessly on a highway in violation of Code § 46.2-852. We find that the evidence is insufficient and reverse.
Although the record contains two references to Code § 46.2-853, the parties agree that appellant was convicted of violating Code § 46.2-852. Thus, our inquiry here is focused upon the application and interpretation of Code § 46.2-852.
Code § 46.2-852 provides:
Reckless driving; general rule.-Irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving.
For reasons not disclosed in the record, the prosecutor elected not to proceed on the charge for which appellant was arrested and amended the charge to reckless driving. To support a conviction for reckless driving in violation of Code § 46.2-852, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable **653 doubt that the accused drove the vehicle in a reckless manner “so as to endanger the life, limb, or property” of another.
The Commonwealth relies upon Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 1 Va.App. 469, 339 S.E.2d 905 (1986), to support appellant’s conviction. Kennedy and his family had been on the road for *355 eight hours when Kennedy ran his van off of the road into a wooded median strip. Id. at 470-71, 339 S.E.2d at 906. This Court affirmed Kennedy’s conviction even though no eyewitness testimony proved Kennedy drove in a reckless manner. The Court in Kennedy stated that the circumstances of the accident were such as to give rise to an inference that the car had been driven in a reckless manner in violation of the Code. Id. at 472, 339 S.E.2d at 907.
The circumstances in which Pisarck found appellant’s car were such as to give rise to an inference that appellant drove her car to the location where Pisarck found her. In fact, we have held in similar circumstances that a defendant could be convicted of driving or operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. See Propst v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 791, 485 S.E.2d 657 (1997). However, the circumstances in appellant’s case do not give rise to an inference that she drove her car in a reckless manner. See City of Baton Rouge v. Copley, 372 So.2d 1215 (1979); Jenson v. Fletcher, 277 A.D. 454, 101 N.Y.S.2d 75 (1950).
“[W]hile evidence of intoxication is a factor that might bear upon proof of dangerous or reckless driving in a given case, it does not, of itself, prove reckless driving.” Bishop v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 206, 210, 455 S.E.2d 765, 767 (1995). ” ‘One may be both drunk and reckless. He may be reckless though not drunk; he may even be a total abstainer, and he may be under the influence of intoxicants and yet drive carefully.’ ” Id. (quoting Spickard v. City of Lynchburg, 174 Va. 502, 504-505, 6 S.E.2d 610, 611 (1940)).
In Powers v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 386, 388, 177 S.E.2d 628, 630 (1970), the Court said:
The word “recklessly” as used in the statute imparts a disregard by the driver of a motor vehicle for the consequences of his act and an indifference to the safety of life, limb or property….
The essence of the offense of reckless driving lies not in the act of operating a vehicle, but in the manner and circumstances of its operation.
*356 [3] We hold that under the facts shown by this record, the Commonwealth has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of reckless driving in violation of Code § 46.2-852.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
Va.App.,1997.
Hall v. Com.
25 Va.App. 352, 488 S.E.2d 651
In this case, an out of state truck driver who possessed a CDL lost his privilege to drive in Virginia and in the state that issued him his driving license due to a conviction for reckless driving based on speed in violation of 46.2-862. The truck driver chose not to appear for the trial and although he did not receive a jail sentence, he was fined a very high fine and had his license suspended.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Barry Wayne WICKER,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
No. 0293-01-3.
Code ” § 46.2-862 . Exceeding speed limit.-A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth … in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.”
The defendant received a summons for driving a tractor-trailer 91 miles per hour. The defendant signed the summons promising to appear for trial, but he did not. By counsel, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and waived a jury. The Commonwealth waived imposition of a jail sentence so the trial could proceed in the defendant’s absence, but it argued for a substantial fine and license suspension. The trial court found the defendant guilty, imposed a $1,000 fine, and suspended his license for nine months.
FN2. The Commonwealth concedes the defendant’s license could not be suspended for more than six months, Code § 46.2-393, and asks us to vacate the excess portion of the suspension. Wheeling v. City of Roanoke, 2 Va.App. 42, 43 n. 1, 341 S.E.2d 389, 389 n. 1 (1986).
On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred by imposing a punitive fine and an excessive license suspension because it could not impose a jail sentence. He also maintains the suspension improperly amounted to a forfeiture of his Pennsylvania commercial driver’s license. The statement of facts fails to show that the defendant preserved these issues for appeal. It contains no record of the arguments presented at trial nor the objections made to the sentence imposed. “We cannot assume that appellant’s objection and reasons were proffered but not made a part of the record.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va.App. 512, 516, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991). We do not consider an objection not stated at trial. Rule 5A:18.
We affirm the trial court but remand for it to vacate that portion of the license suspension in excess of the statutory maximum.
Affirmed and remanded in part.
Va.App.,2001.
Wicker v. Com.
Dec. 18, 2001.
