COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Alston, Chafin and O’Brien 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

KENNETH LEE BARDEN 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 1027-14-4 JUDGE ROSSIE D. ALSTON, JR. 

 MAY 12, 2015 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 

Burke F. McCahill, Judge 

Bonnie H. Hoffman, Deputy Public Defender (Office of the Public 

Defender, on briefs), for appellant. 

Kathleen B. Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. 

Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Kenneth Barden (“appellant”) appeals his conviction of driving under a suspended or 

revoked license, in violation of Code § 46.2-301, because the evidence adduced at trial failed to 

establish that his driver’s license was suspended or revoked at the time he was operating a motor 

vehicle. For the reasons expressed below, we agree and reverse appellant’s conviction under 

Code § 46.2-301(B). 

BACKGROUND 

The facts in this matter are not in dispute. On November 6, 2013, appellant was driving 

in Loudoun County when he was stopped by Officer Clark McDaniel. During the course of the 

stop, Officer McDaniel used the computer in his patrol car to access appellant’s Department of 

Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) record, which listed appellant’s driver’s license status as “revoked.” 

When asked whether he possessed a driver’s license, appellant responded that he did not. 

PUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

Appellant was arrested and subsequently charged with driving on a suspended or revoked 

license, in violation of Code § 46.2-301(B).1 

At appellant’s bench trial, the Commonwealth introduced appellant’s DMV record as an 

exhibit. The transcript reflects that on February 15, 2008, appellant was convicted of driving 

while intoxicated, a first offense, and that the trial court suspended his driver’s license for a 

period of twelve months. Shortly thereafter, upon receipt of appellant’s conviction order, the 

Commissioner of the DMV, pursuant to Code § 46.2-389,2 revoked appellant’s license for a term 

ending on February 8, 2009. 

According to his transcript, appellant was again convicted of driving while intoxicated on 

February 25, 2008. As before, the trial court suspended appellant’s license for twelve months, 

and the Commissioner revoked appellant’s license upon receipt of appellant’s conviction order. 

Appellant’s transcript lists the “term” of this revocation as February 18, 2009. 

In addition to the two periods of revocation, appellant’s transcript lists five separate 

suspensions (each for an indefinite period) incurred by appellant for failing to pay fines and court 

                                                             1 Code § 46.2-301(B) states, in pertinent part, 

[N]o resident or nonresident (i) whose driver’s license, learner’s 

permit, or privilege to drive a motor vehicle has been suspended or 

revoked or (ii) who has been directed not to drive by any court or 

by the Commissioner, or (iii) who has been forbidden, as 

prescribed by operation of any statute of the Commonwealth or a 

substantially similar ordinance of any county, city or town, to 

operate a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth shall thereafter 

drive any motor vehicle or any self-propelled machinery or 

equipment on any highway in the Commonwealth until the period 

of such suspension or revocation has terminated or the privilege 

has been reinstated or a restricted license is issued pursuant to 

subsection E. 

2

 Under Code § 46.2-389(A) the Commissioner is required to revoke “the driver’s license 

of any resident . . . on receiving a record of his conviction” of driving while intoxicated, among 

other crimes. Code § 46.2-389(B) provides that the revocation shall last “for one year.” 
- 3 - 

costs associated with prior court proceedings (including appellant’s two convictions for driving 

while intoxicated).3 During trial, appellant introduced receipts proving that he paid in full his 

past due fines and court costs relating to all of the prior convictions approximately two months 

before he was stopped by Officer McDaniel. Appellant testified, however, that he had not paid 

any reinstatement fees; nor had he applied for a new or renewal driver’s license at the time he 

was stopped. 

At the close of the evidence, appellant argued that he was not driving on a suspended or 

revoked license when he was stopped by Officer McDaniel because the periods of suspension 

and revocation had ended. According to appellant, his indefinite suspensions terminated upon 

payment of his past due fines and court costs, while each of his revocations expired on set dates 

prior to when he was stopped – February 8, 2009 and February 18, 2009, respectively. Because 

Code § 46.2-301(B) penalizes driving only during the period of suspension or revocation, 

appellant asserted that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Appellant further 

asserted that his failure to reapply for a new or renewal license had no bearing on whether the 

periods of suspension and revocation ended prior to when he was stopped. At most, appellant 

contended that he was guilty of violating Code § 46.2-300, which punishes as a Class 2 

misdemeanor any person who drives without a valid license on a highway in the Commonwealth. 

Following the parties’ closing arguments, the trial court convicted appellant of driving 

after his privilege was suspended or revoked. In reaching its decision, the trial court noted that 

Code § 46.2-100 draws a distinction between suspension and revocation: While the trial court 

recognized some “merit to [appellant’s] argument about suspension – the idea that . . . it might be 

                                                             3

 Because appellant’s numerous suspensions were largely coterminous, we refer 

throughout this opinion to a singular period of suspension rather than multiple, overlapping 

periods of suspension. We follow the same approach when referencing appellant’s period of 

revocation. 
- 4 - 

self-curing, that you pay and you no longer have that suspension because it was only suspended 

indefinitely until you pay,” the trial court found no support for appellant’s argument that a 

revocation terminated prior to restoration of one’s driver’s license. Relying on appellant’s DMV 

transcript, which identified appellant’s then-status as revoked, the trial court found appellant 

guilty of driving on a revoked license. 

This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant contends that the trial court erred by finding the evidence sufficient to support 

his conviction of driving under a suspended or revoked license. According to appellant, his 

license was neither suspended nor revoked when he was stopped by Officer McDaniel. This is 

so, appellant says, because the period of his license suspension terminated upon payment of his 

outstanding court costs, and his period of revocation ended years prior to his arrest for driving 

under a revoked license. Although appellant concedes that he did not formally reapply to have 

his license reinstated or renewed after the term of his suspension and revocation ended, he 

contends that his failure to reapply for a reinstated license is immaterial to his conviction under 

Code § 46.2-301(B), because “the revocation provisions [of Chapter 3 of Title 46.2] separate the 

termination of the revocation from the reinstatement of one’s [license]” and “revocation must 

end before reinstatement may occur.” Appellant’s Br. at 12. In other words, appellant asserts 

that, although he was an unlicensed driver at the time he was stopped,4

 he was not guilty of 

driving under a revoked license because Code § 46.2-301(B) penalizes driving on a suspended or 

revoked license only “until the period of suspension or revocation has terminated,” id. at 4, and 

                                                             4

 See Code § 46.2-300 (treating driving without a valid license as a Class 2 

misdemeanor).
- 5 - 

both periods expired before the date of his stop. Accordingly, appellant contends that the 

Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving a violation of Code § 46.2-301(B).

In response, the Commonwealth contends that the suspension and revocation of 

appellant’s license remained in effect at the time of his arrest, because “a suspension or 

revocation does not end automatically by operation of law, but instead continues until a new 

license is applied for and issued.” Commonwealth’s Br. at 8. According to the Commonwealth, 

this conclusion follows primarily from Code § 46.2-411(C), which states that “[an] order of 

suspension or revocation shall remain in effect and the driver’s license, . . . shall not be reinstated 

and no new driver’s license, . . . shall be issued or granted unless such person, in addition to 

complying with all other provisions of law, pays to the Commissioner a reinstatement fee.”5 

Because the Commissioner was not permitted to issue appellant a new or renewal license until 

appellant satisfied these statutory prerequisites, which appellant admittedly did not complete 

following the terms of his suspension and revocation, the Commonwealth asserts that appellant’s 

suspension and revocation remained in effect at the time of his stop. 

The issue presented in this appeal raises a question of statutory construction, which we 

review de novo. Kirby v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 665, 669, 762 S.E.2d 414, 416 (2014). 

Our review is guided by well-settled principles. 

“It is one of the fundamental rules of construction of statutes that 

the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from a view of the 

whole and every part of the statute taken and compared together, 

giving to every word and every part of the statute, if possible, its 

due effect and meaning, and to the words used their ordinary and 

                                                             5

 The Commonwealth cites also to Code § 46.2-411.1, which requires “written 

confirmation” that the person whose license was suspended or revoked as a result of a conviction 

for driving while intoxicated “successfully completed” an alcohol safety action program, and 

Code § 46.2-412, which provides, in relevant part, that “[e]very suspension or revocation shall 

remain in effect and the Commissioner shall not issue any new or renewal license . . . until 

permitted under the provisions of [Chapter 3 – Licensure of Drivers].” 
- 6 - 

popular meaning, unless it plainly appears that they were used in 

some other sense. If the intention of the legislature can be thus 

discovered, it is not permissible to add to or subtract from the 

words used in the statute.” 

Shreve v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 541, 546-47, 605 S.E.2d 780, 782 (2004) (quoting Posey 

v. Commonwealth, 123 Va. 551, 553, 96 S.E. 771, 771 (1918)). We are also mindful that a 

proceeding under Code § 46.2-301 is criminal, and violations are punished as misdemeanors. 

Accordingly, Code § 46.2-301 “‘must be strictly construed against the state and limited in 

application to cases falling clearly within the language of the statute.’” Davis v. Commonwealth, 

12 Va. App. 246, 248, 402 S.E.2d 711, 712 (1991) (quoting Crews v. Commonwealth, 3 

Va. App. 531, 536, 352 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1987)). 

Code § 46.2-301(B) prohibits an individual whose driver’s license has been suspended or 

revoked from driving “until the period of such suspension or revocation has terminated or the 

privilege has been reinstated or a restricted license is issued.” In other words, this statutory 

provision criminalizes driving only during the period in which one’s driver’s license is 

suspended or revoked. See Paduano v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 173, 180, 766 S.E.2d 745, 

748 (2014) (“‘Courts are required to apply the plain language of a statute when possible and may 

not rewrite it.’” (quoting Parker v. Warren, 273 Va. 20, 23, 639 S.E.2d 179, 181 (2007))). It 

follows no less clearly from Code § 46.2-301(B)’s plain language that license suspensions and 

revocations have defined beginnings and endings; that is the natural import of the phrase “the 

period of . . . suspension or revocation.” 

Moreover, those periods of suspension and revocation come about independent of the 

Commissioner’s reinstatement or renewal of one’s driver’s license. Code § 46.2-100 clarifies 

this point. Under that provision, the legislature has defined “suspension” to “mean[] that the 

document or privilege suspended has been temporarily withdrawn, but may be reinstated 
- 7 - 

following the period of suspension” and “revocation” to “mean that the document or privilege 

revoked is not subject to renewal or restoration except through reapplication after the expiration 

of the period of revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, Code § 46.2-100 references the 

reinstatement or renewal of a suspended or revoked license as an event separate from (and in this 

context, subsequent to) the termination of the period of suspension or revocation. Thus, Code 

§ 46.2-100 makes reinstatement or renewal of a driver’s license contingent upon the termination 

of the period of suspension or revocation – not vice versa, as the Commonwealth contends. 

Furthermore, to adopt the Commonwealth’s assertion – that a period of “suspension or 

revocation . . . continues until a new license is applied for and issued” – would not only invert 

this relationship but also conflate the Commissioner’s authority to suspend or revoke a license 

with his distinct authority to issue a new or renewal license. While the issuance of a new or 

renewal license is within the Commissioner’s broad discretion, see Code § 46.2-411(A) (stating 

that the Commissioner may refuse to issue any new or renewal license to an individual whose 

license has been suspended or revoked “whenever he deems . . . it necessary for the safety of the 

public”), the Commissioner’s authority to suspend or revoke a driver’s license is strictly 

circumscribed by statute, see generally Code § 46.2-410 (noting that suspension or revocation of 

a license is mandatory in certain cases). In other words, the Commissioner’s authority to 

suspend or revoke an individual’s driver’s license extends no further than the authorizing statute 

permits. 

As relevant here, Code § 46.2-389 mandated revocation of appellant’s license “for one 

year” upon the Commissioner receiving a record from the trial court of appellant’s convictions 

for driving while intoxicated. Appellant incurred both convictions in February 2008, the trial 

court notified the Commissioner on both occasions within the same month, and the 

Commissioner issued revocation orders shortly thereafter. Appellant’s period of revocation 
- 8 - 

therefore lasted no later than February 2009. See App. at 68 (appellant’s DMV transcript 

identifying the “term” of his revocations as February 8, 2009 and February 18, 2009, 

respectively). Similarly, Code § 46.2-395(B) authorized suspension of appellant’s license upon 

his failure to pay court costs and fines assessed against him by the trial court - but only until the 

costs “ha[d] been paid in full.” The undisputed facts of this case establish that appellant paid in 

full his assessed court costs and fines approximately two months prior to when he was stopped. 

Accordingly, the periods of suspension and revocation assessed against appellant terminated 

prior to when he was stopped by Officer McDaniel. 

Although appellant concedes that he made no effort to acquire a new driver’s license 

following the termination of the relevant periods of suspension and revocation, this failure had 

no bearing on whether he violated Code § 46.2-301(B). The periods of suspension and 

revocation terminated by operation of the same statutory provisions that first authorized them6

 – 

and appellant’s failure to complete the necessary steps to acquire a new license (those relied 

upon by the Commonwealth on brief) concerns only whether appellant is validly permitted to 

drive in the Commonwealth. See Code § 46.2-300 (punishing as a Class 2 misdemeanor any 

person who drives any motor vehicle on any highway in the Commonwealth without a valid 

license). This conclusion is apparent from the very statutory provision relied upon by the 

                                                             6

 The Commonwealth contests this point, asserting “that a suspension or revocation does 

not end automatically by operation of law, but instead continues until a new license is applied for 

and issued.” Commonwealth’s Br. at 8. In support of this contention the Commonwealth cites 

Sears v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 158, 510 S.E.2d 274 (1999). 

 We find the Commonwealth’s reliance on Sears misplaced. In Sears, which concerned 

the habitual offender statute in place at that time, we concluded that a defendant’s privilege to 

drive was not automatically restored simply “by the passage of the revocation period,” because 

the court order suspending the defendant’s privilege to drive expressly prohibited the defendant 

from driving “for a period of ten (10) years . . . and until [defendant’s] privilege . . . to operate a 

motor vehicle . . . ha[d] been restored by [a court of record].” Id. at 161, 510 S.E.2d at 275 

(emphasis added). Here, unlike Sears, the relevant statute prohibits driving only until the period 

of suspension or revocation terminates or the privilege has been reinstated. Code § 46.2-301(B). 
- 9 - 

Commonwealth. While Code § 46.2-411(C) states that an “order of suspension or revocation 

shall remain in effect” until an individual “pays to the Commissioner a reinstatement fee,” Code 

§ 46.2-302 provides that an individual who “has failed to pay a reinstatement fee, shall be tried 

under [Code] § 46.2-300” - not, as here, under Code § 46.2-301(B).7

 

This is so because, while Code § 46.2-411(C) states that “[an] order of suspension or 

revocation shall remain in effect,” it does not perpetuate the “period of suspension or revocation” 

that is the focus of Code § 46.2-301(B). The termination of a period of suspension or revocation 

precedes the reinstatement (or in the case of revocation, restoration) of one’s license. See Code 

§ 46.2-100 (stating that a revoked license may be restored “through reapplication after the 

expiration of the period of revocation” and a suspended license may be reinstated “following the 

period of suspension” (emphasis added)). It is the termination of the period of suspension or 

revocation that triggers an individual’s eligibility for reinstatement (or restoration). It makes 

little sense, then, to suggest that the period of suspension or revocation continues until the 

reinstatement fee is paid. 

Moreover, Code § 46.2-411(C) grants to the Commissioner the discretion to waive 

repayment of the reinstatement fee “[w]hen three years have elapsed from the termination date of 

the order of suspension or revocation and the person has complied with all other provisions of 

law.” (Emphasis added). Were we to assume that repayment of the reinstatement fee was 

required before a period of suspension or revocation terminated, as the Commonwealth contends, 

this provision would be meaningless. The Commissioner could never relieve an individual of 

                                                             7

 This is also true of Code § 46.2-411.1(A), which the Commonwealth cites on brief. 

While Code § 46.2-411.1(A) precludes restoration of a driver’s license until the Commissioner 

has received “written confirmation that the person has successfully completed [an alcohol safety 

action program],” subsection (B) provides that any person who drives in the Commonwealth 

before “successful completion of such program shall be guilty of a violation of [Code] 

§ 46.2-300.” 
- 10 - 

paying the reinstatement fee after “three years have elapsed from the termination of the date of 

the order of suspension or revocation,” if the period of suspension or revocation terminated only 

upon payment of the fee. 

Our construction of the relevant statutory texts causes us to conclude that a period of 

suspension or revocation terminates independent of reinstatement or renewal of one’s driver’s 

license. Thus, we find that appellant’s failure to reapply for a new license or formally become a 

reinstated licensee did not extend the periods of his suspension or revocation, as argued by the 

Commonwealth. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was insufficient to prove that appellant 

drove a motor vehicle on any highway in the Commonwealth before “the period of [his] 

suspension or revocation ha[d] terminated.” Code § 46.2-301(B). We therefore reverse 

appellant’s conviction for driving on a suspended or revoked license in violation of Code 

§ 46.2-301(B). 

Because we hold that the evidence was insufficient to prove that appellant drove a vehicle 

in violation of any existing period of suspension or revocation, we reverse the trial court’s 

conviction of appellant under Code § 46.2-301(B). 

Reversed.