DUI Virginia Code

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Raymond Allen Bridgett
CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA
April 25, 1995

The defendant had admitted but he points out the following differences between the warrants and the DMV records: (1) for the conviction on 12/6/91, the warrant shows an offense date of 9/8/91, while the DMV driver history record shows the offense date as 9/9/91; (2) for the conviction on 10/28/94, the warrant shows a violation of the Leesburg Town Code, while the DMV driver history record shows a violation of a Loudoun County ordinance. Because of these two differences, the defendant argues that he should not be declared a habitual offender.

Issue:

Whether the defendant should not declared as a habitual Offender?

The Court observed that the Commonwealth is required in this case to prove three predicate DUI convictions. The defendant does not challenge his convictions. The defendant challenges the accuracy of certain information in the certification from DMV.  DMV may have in its records the wrong date of the DUI offense for which the defendant was convicted on December 6, 1991, but the error does not tend to show that the defendant was not convicted of DUI on that date. The defendant offered no evidence to show that as a result of an error in the date of offense in the DMV records, he was unjustly or wrongfully convicted of DUI on December 6, 1991. This Court refuses to find that because one or two pieces of information about the defendant in the DMV records are erroneous, all the information therein about the defendant is erroneous.  To meet the definition of an habitual offender under § 46.2-351, the information needed would be the name of the person, the type of offense, the court of conviction, and the date of conviction. The date of offense would only be needed if the “multiple offenses within a six-hour period” rule of § 46.2-351 comes into play. There is no evidence that this rule has anything to do with this case.  The defendant merely points to erroneous information in his DMV records which are extraneous to the habitual offender proceeding. The errors relate to matters which merely “clutter” the trial court records.  The two errors are irrelevant to the validity of the convictions for habitual offender purposes.

Hence this court granted the motion of the prosecution that sought to declare defendant a habitual offender.

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.

 

Filed: Brand New
tags: 46.2351, Beach, Code, County, Fairfax, Laws, Lawyers, Loudoun, Prince, Virginia, William