COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Baker 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER T. TEMPLE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2614-97-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 NOVEMBER 24, 1998 

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Alan E. Rosenblatt, Judge 

 J. Gray Lawrence, Jr. (Faggert & 

Freidan, P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 L. Steven Emmert, Senior Attorney (Office of 

the City Attorney, on brief), for appellee. 

 Christopher T. Temple (defendant) appeals his conviction for 

driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of § 21-336, 

Code of the City of Virginia Beach. He contends the trial court 

erroneously deprived him of his Commercial Driver's License (CDL) 

as a result of the conviction. Because we find defendant was not 

so deprived, we affirm. 

 On October 24, 1997, defendant was convicted of driving his 

pickup truck while under the influence of alcohol. Pursuant to 

such conviction, the trial court suspended defendant's 

conventional operator's license but specifically ordered that 

"pursuant to 18.2-271 this shall not affect the defendant's CDL 

license." Defendant was also given a suspended jail sentence and 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

fined. Defendant argues that, in spite of the trial court's 

order, his CDL was suspended. Because a locality may not suspend 

a CDL, defendant reasons that the Code of the City of Virginia 

Beach is invalid and his conviction must be reversed. 

 Code § 1-13.17 prohibits a locality from enacting ordinances 

"inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States 

or of this State." However, "if both the statute and the 

ordinance can stand together, courts are obligated to harmonize 

them, rather than nullifying the ordinance." Granny's Cottage, 

Inc. v. Town of Occoquan, 3 Va. App. 577, 582, 352 S.E.2d 10, 13 

(1987) (citing King v. County of Arlington, 195 Va. 1084, 1091, 

81 S.E.2d 587, 591 (1954)). It is our burden, therefore, to 

examine the laws at issue with an eye towards keeping all and 

harming none. 

 Section 21-336 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach 

states: 

 No person shall drive or operate in the city 

any automobile or other motor vehicle, engine 

or train (i) while such person has a blood 

alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more 

by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 

210 liters of breath as indicated by a 

chemical test administered in accordance with 

the provisions of section 21-338 . . . . 

Those convicted under the ordinance, including defendant, lose 

"the privilege to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or 

train in the [C]ommonwealth." Section 21-341, Code of the City 

of Virginia Beach. But the ordinance contains an exception: 

"Except as provided in Code of Virginia section 18.2-271.1." 
- 3 - 

 Code § 18.2-271.1 lists different punishments for those 

convicted under either state or local drunk driving laws, and it 

limits the power of courts to deprive defendants of licenses. It 

states: 

 Upon conviction of a violation of § 18.2-266 

[drunk driving statute] or any ordinance of a 

county, city or town similar to the 

provisions thereof, or subsection A of 

§ 46.2-341.24, the court shall impose the 

sentence authorized by § 18.2-270 or 

§ 46.2-341.28 and the license revocation as 

authorized by §§ 18.2-270 and 18.2-271. 

(Emphasis added). Code § 18.2-271 provides that those convicted 

of state and local drunk driving laws may have their licenses 

revoked but "[t]he provisions of this section shall not apply to, 

and shall have no effect upon, any disqualification from 

operating a commercial motor vehicle imposed under the provisions 

of the Commercial Driver's License Act (§ 46.2-341.1 et seq.)." 

 Defendant argues that his CDL was automatically revoked when 

he was convicted under § 21-336 of the Code of the City of 

Virginia Beach. However, the City of Virginia Beach, in a 

convoluted but effective manner, avoided this result by including 

in their ordinance an exception tied to the state code's 

prohibition against interfering with CDLs. This is in 

conformance with the Commercial Driver's License Act itself, 

which prohibits localities from adopting "ordinances that are 

substantially similar to the provisions" of the Act. Code 

§ 46.2-341.3. 

 We hold that § 21-341 of the Code of the City of Virginia 
- 4 - 

Beach is not in conflict with Code §§ 18.2-271, 46.2-341.3 or any 

other section discussed herein. Therefore, defendant's 

conviction is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.