s

Tag Archives: Court Noted That

Passing School Bus

If you are concerned about School Bus Fees In Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

 

Passing School Bus Fees Defense In Virginia Lawyers

Gooch v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant’s motion to set aside the guilty verdict rested on his claim that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the words “School Bus” were on the front and rear of the bus that he was charged with illegally passing in letters that were at least eight inches high, as required by Va. Code Ann. § 46.1-190(f). Granting defendant’s motion, the court noted that the prosecution’s witnesses. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of § 46.1-190(f). Thus, defendant’s conviction could not stand, case dismissed with attorney’s fees.

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

Holdings:

The Court made the following holding:
  • Va. Code Ann. § 46.1-190(f), which declares that illegally overtake a stopped academic vehicle constitutes reckless driving, requires that the words be in black letters at least eight inches high on the front and rear of the bus. The Supreme Court of Virginia has said that in order to convict a defendant for violating § 46.1-190(f), the burden is on the Commonwealth to show that the academic vehicle was properly marked or identified.
  • There is a difference between indulging a presumption in favor of an officer having done a duty which the law casts upon him and indulging a presumption that a fact exists, which a statute requires to exist, in order to constitute a criminal offense.

 

§ 46.2-859. Passing a stopped….; prima facie evidence


A person driving a motor vehicle shall stop such vehicle when approaching, from any direction, any academic vehicle  which is stopped on any highway, private road or driveway for the purpose of taking on or discharging children, the elderly, or mentally or physically handicapped persons, and shall remain stopped until all the persons are clear of the highway, private road or driveway and the vehicle is put in motion; any person violating the foregoing is guilty of reckless driving. The driver of a vehicle, however, need not stop when approaching an academic vehicle if the academic vehicle is stopped on the other roadway of a divided highway, on an access road, or on a driveway when the other roadway, access road, or driveway is separated from the roadway on which he is driving by a physical barrier or an unpaved area. The driver of a vehicle also need not stop when approaching an academic vehicle which is loading or discharging passengers from or onto property immediately adjacent to an institute if the driver is directed by a law-enforcement officer or other duly authorized uniformed crossing guard to pass the academic vehicle. This section shall apply to academic vehicles which are equipped with warning devices prescribed in § 46.2-1090…


Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-859

§ 46.2-868. Reckless driving; penalties

  • A.  Every person convicted of reckless driving under the provisions of this article is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
  • B.  Every person convicted of reckless driving under the provisions of this article who, when he committed the offense, (i) was driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and, (ii) as the sole and proximate result of his reckless driving, caused the death of another, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
  • C.  The punishment for every person convicted of reckless driving under the provisions of this article who, when he committed the offense, was in violation of § 46.2-1078.1 shall include a mandatory minimum fine of $ 250.

Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-868

 

Article written by A Sris
Click to Chat

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.

First Felony Carjacking

If you have been charged with your first felony carjacking and you are worried about your sentence in VA, contact our law firm immediately for help.

 

 

First Felony Carjacking Sentence Virginia

Mathew Jr. v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant, a minor, was convicted of carjkn. and the use of a firearm in the commission of a carjkn.. The trial court ruled that Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-53.1 required the imposition of a mandatory three-year despite the more lenient statutory provision relating to juvenile sentencing found in Va. Code § 16.1-272(A)(1). In affirming, the court held that the mandatory language of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-53.1 required the trial court to impose a three-year, unsuspended despite the provisions of Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-272. The court determined that the terms of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-53 were not limited by other incongruous laws because the General Assembly intended § 18.2-53.1 to function “without obstruction” from them. Moreover, the court noted that Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-272 did not contain mandatory language, as did Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-53.1.

If you are facing a criminal case in Fairfax, VA 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. § 18.2-53.1 contains an extremely restrictive sentencing provision whereby violation of the section shall constitute a separate and distinct felon. and any person found guilty thereof shall be a term of imprisonment of three years for a 1st conviction, and for a term of five years for a second or subsequent conviction under the provisions of this section. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term prescribed for a violation of the provisions of this section shall not be suspended in whole or in part, nor shall anyone convicted hereunder be placed on probation.
  • The terms of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-53.1, relating to sentencing for one convicted of the use of a firearm in the commission of a felon., are not limited by other incongruous laws because the VA General Assembly intended Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-53.1 to function “without obstruction” from them.

 

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
Click to Chat

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.

Passing School Bus

Passing an academic vehicle Reckless Driving Charge – VA Lawyers

There are many different penalties for an overtaking academic vehicle RD Charge In VA.

If you are dealing with an overtaking academic vehicle RD Charge In VA, contact our law firm immediately for help.

 

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.

Passing School Bus Virginia Reckless Driving

Luther Camp v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant’s motion to set aside the guilty verdict rested on his claim that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the words “School Bus” were on the front and rear of the bus that he was charged with illegally passing in letters that were at least eight inches high, as required by Va. Code Ann. § 46.1-190(f). The court noted that the prosecution’s witnesses, including the academic vehicle driver and the academic vehicle supervisor, had testified that the letters of the words “academic vehicle” were from three to six inches high; though the academic vehicle supervisor later claimed that the letters were actually over six inches high, he failed to specify their height. The court granted defendant’s motion to set aside the jury verdict that convicted him of RD.

If you are facing a traffic case in Fairfax, VA, 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. § 46.1-190(f), which declares that illegally passing a stopped academic vehicle constitutes RD, requires that the words “academic vehicle” be in black letters at least eight inches high on the front and rear of the bus. The Supreme Court of VA has said that in order to convict a defendant for violating § 46.1-190(f), the burden is on the Commonwealth to show that the academic vehicle was properly marked or identified.
  • The standard in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and it is elementary that an accused in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt; the burden rests upon the Commonwealth to establish such guilt and the burden never shifts. Every material element of the offense charged must be proved in order to find a defendant guilty.

 

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
Click to Chat

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.

Joint Custody Laws

Joint Custody Laws – Virginia Lawyers

There are many different types of custody arrangements pursuant to joint custody laws in Virginia.

If you are dealing with Joint Custody Laws in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Richmond Virginia Beach Loudoun Prince William Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.

Joint Custody Laws Virginia

Joint Custody Laws Virginia

Joint Custody Laws 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.

Warner v. Warner

Facts:

Plaintiff wife filed a petition for a divorce from defendant husband. A hearing was held on the issues of grounds of divorce, custody, visitation, child support, a reservation of spousal support, equitable distribution, and attorney fees. The wife opposed joint custody, ostensibly because of the husband’s use of pornography. The court noted that she had been willing to agree to joint custody until the husband indicated he could not continue to pay $ 1,500 in child support. The children spent a considerable amount of time with the husband, and the parties had the ability to communicate with each other. The court therefore awarded joint custody, finding this to be in the children’s best interest.

If you are facing a divorce case in Fairfax, 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 party contending that income should be imputed for purposes of establishing child support is required to produce evidence that is sufficient to enable the trial judge reasonably to project what amount could be anticipated had the other party procured employment.
  • Expenditures for living expenses during the divorce do not constitute waste (a dissipation of marital funds). Payment on marital debts and court-ordered support where the payment provides a benefit to the other spouse should not be considered as dissipation. Expenditures of marital funds for attorney fees in the divorce do not constitute waste.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Richmond Virginia Beach Loudoun Prince William Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.

Joint Custody Laws 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
Click to Chat

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 Expungement Laws

Virginia Expungement Laws Malicious Wounding Code 19.2-392.2 Richmond Attorney

Martin V Commonwealth

Facts:

Appellant sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court (Virginia), which denied appellant’s petition for expungement of the police and court records pertaining to a malicious wounding charge against appellant. The court noted that, if the word “acquitted in Virginia code § 19.2-392.2(A)(1) was interpreted to include acquittals by reason of insanity, a person found not guilty by reason of insanity could, immediately after the judgment, seek expungement and avoid all the constraints upon his liberty imposed by the “not guilty by reason of insanity” laws, which were enacted for the purpose of protecting society.

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

Virginia Expungement Laws Malicious Wounding Code 19.2-392.2 Richmond Attorney

Virginia Expungement Laws Malicious

Holdings:
The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • A person who has been found “not guilty by reason of insanity” of a criminal charge has not been acquitted in the sense that he has been determined to be innocent of the commission of the criminal act charged. Rather, he has been excused from criminal responsibility for the act because his mental condition at the time of the offense crossed the borderline of legal insanity, precluding a finding that he possessed the mens rea requisite for conviction.
  • An individual may be excused from penalty if he is insane at the time he commits a criminal act. As here, he may do the act with every intention of consummating it, but when it is shown that he was mentally ill, he is excused from the imposition of the usual sanctions. The absence of punishment, however, does not retrospectively expunge the original intention.

The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your case.

A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case 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

Click to Chat

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 Images Lawyers

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA V. MICHAEL JAMES

 Virginia Child Pornography Case Summary

Facts:

Police arrested the defendant and they seized his computer.  The Investigator found a number of images of child pornography on it.  These images were contained in a “temporary internet cache.”  Investigator testified that images are stored in a “temporary internet cache” automatically whenever the computer operator “visits a website;” the operator need take no action to have the images stored.  Investigator further testified that most of the photographs of child pornography he found on the defendant’s computer were “thumbnails,” which means they had not been enlarged.  It was determined that the operator of defendant’s computer visited websites that contained images of child pornography, viewed those images, but took no further action.  Therefore, defendant argued that such actions did not constitute “possession” of child pornography.  He made a motion to dismiss pending charges of possession of child pornography in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1 and also made a motion to suppress.

Issue:

  • Whether the pornography images stored in temporary internet cache constitute “possession” of child pornography within the meaning of the statute?

Discussion:

The court states that the “knowing” element of the possession of child pornography was shown for the purposes of the motion to dismiss as defendant stated “I don’t have too much” when asked by the police about the presence of child pornography on his computer.  The court noted that the sufficiency of the evidence of that element would have to be determined by the trier of fact.  The Court did not find at the hearing that the defendant invoked either his right to counsel or his right to silence at the time of his arrest when he made the statement to the police indicating some knowledge of the presence of child pornography on his computer.  This Court resolves all doubts on the credibility of the witnesses on that issue in favor of the Commonwealth.  Accordingly, the court also denied the motion to suppress as defendant did not invoke his right to counsel or his right to remain silent when he made the statement to the police.

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