COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Coleman and Elder 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

SHIRLEY LOUISE GRAY 

 OPINION 

v. Record No. 2767-95-3 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE 

Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge 

 Randy V. Cargill (Magee, Foster, Goldstein & 

Sayers, on brief), for appellant. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Shirley Louise Gray (appellant) appeals from the judgment of 

the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke (trial court) that 

approved her jury trial conviction of driving while under the 

influence of alcohol in violation of Code § 18.2-266. On appeal, 

appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to 

prove that she was intoxicated but argues that her conviction 

must be reversed because Code § 18.2-266 does not apply to 

driving on private property in Virginia while under the influence 

of alcohol. We disagree. 

 The facts are not contested. On June 11, 1995, at 

approximately 1:15 a.m., in the City of Roanoke, appellant 

operated her motor vehicle, while under the influence of alcohol, 

upon a privately owned parking lot. Appellant was arrested by 

Officer E. J. Barlow of the Roanoke City Police Department. 
- 2 - 

 Code § 18.2-266 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

 It shall be unlawful for any person to 

drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or 

train (i) while such person has a blood 

alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent . . . 

(ii) while such person is under the influence 

of alcohol . . . . 

 For the purposes of this section the term 

"motor vehicle" includes mopeds, while 

operated on the public highways of this 

Commonwealth. 

 Except for the operation of mopeds, Code § 18.2-266 contains 

no language restricting its application to one who "drive[s]" or 

"operate[s]" his or her motor vehicle on a public highway. In 

Valentine v. Brunswick County, 202 Va. 696, 119 S.E.2d 486 

(1961), the Supreme Court interpreted a county ordinance which 

prohibited driving in Brunswick County while under the influence 

of intoxicants. That ordinance made it illegal to drive under 

the influence "anywhere in the county of Brunswick" and contained 

no language limiting the offense to driving on the public 

highways. In interpreting the ordinance, the Court held that, 

an ordinance or statute which provides that 

no person shall drive or operate a motor 

vehicle while under the influence of 

intoxicants, and is silent as to the place 

where the offense may be committed, does not 

require as an element of the offense that the 

driving or operating shall be on a public 

highway. 

Id. at 698, 119 S.E.2d at 487 (emphasis added) (citations 

omitted). In so holding, the Court further noted that, 

 [t]he county ordinance is clear, 

unambiguous and means what it says. It 

applies to anyone driving or operating a 
- 3 - 

motor vehicle . . . while under the influence 

of intoxicants anywhere in the county of 

Brunswick, whether on a public highway or 

private property. It does not specify that 

such driving or operating must occur on a 

highway. 

Id. at 699, 119 S.E.2d at 488. 

 The reasoning of Valentine applies here. Code § 18.2-266 is 

"clear, unambiguous and means what it says." Other than for the 

 operation of a moped, the statute does not specify that the 

driving or operating that it criminalizes must occur on a public 

highway, and we decline the invitation to construe the statute to 

impose that requirement. 

 For the reasons stated in Valentine, appellant's reliance 

upon Prillaman v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 401, 100 S.E.2d 4 (1957), 

is misplaced. See Valentine, 202 Va. at 698, 119 S.E.2d at 487. 

 Code § 18.2-266 "is not a highway regulation and cannot be 

construed as part of the general codification of the State motor 

vehicle laws." Id. Therefore, Prillaman has no application 

here. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.