Lawyers

November 7, 2009 – Healthcare Bill Debate in Congress Rep. Braley

Blind Lady Justice –
will add an aura of sophistication to your office or library.-
will please Lawyers and Law students alike.
Percet Holiday Gift

Blind Lady Justice Statue Law Office – Lawyer Gift – Perfect Holiday Gift !

HENRY MAGRUDER WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA 265 Va. 268
February 28, 2003, Decided

When Williams was convicted of the March 2000 offense, the Commonwealth obtained a nolle prosequi of the charge arising from the May 19, 2000 offense. Williams later was indicted in the present case for the offense occurring on May 19, 2000.  Williams made a motion to strike on various grounds, including the argument that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he had been convicted of two prior Virginia DUI offenses at the time he committed the May 19, 2000 offense. The circuit court denied the motion and convicted Williams of the offense charged in the amended indictment.  Williams appealed from his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment.  Then he appealed to Supreme Court of Virginia.

Issue:

Whether the Virginia Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Code § 18.2-270 permitted enhanced punishment for a third DUI offense in Virginia, when a defendant was not convicted of his second DUI offense at the time he committed the third offense?

The Court observe that “Williams does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that he violated Code § 18.2-266. He only challenges the trial court’s application of the enhanced punishment provisions of Code § 18.2-270, which resulted in the elevation of the charged DUI offense from a misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony.  The statutory language before us is unambiguous and demonstrates the General Assembly’s intent to authorize punishment for a Class 6 felony when a defendant has committed three or more DUI offenses under Code § 18.2-266 within a ten-year period.  This punishment is activated, in the language of the statute, by a defendant’s conviction of a third or subsequent offense committed within ten years.  The General Assembly’s  use of the words “offense” and “committed” signals its clear intent to authorize enhanced punishment for a third DUI offense occurring within the prescribed time period even though the second DUI offense has not resulted in a conviction before the third offense is committed.”

Conclusion:

In accordance with this reasoning and with the plain meaning of Code § 18.2-270, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that Code § 18.2-270 permitted enhanced punishment for a third DUI offense based on Williams’ conduct of May 19, 2000.  For these reasons, this Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment.

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.

Originally published here.

The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.  The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law.  The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore.  The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge.