COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

DOUGLAS EDWARD HOLMES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0839-96-2 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

 APRIL 1, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge 

 Bruce P. Ganey (Ganey & Laibstain, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the 

evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 

the defendant had notice that his privilege and license to 

operate a motor vehicle were suspended when he drove on November 

15, 1995. 

 On November 14, 1995, the defendant was convicted of 

reckless driving. The court suspended his privilege and license 

to operate a motor vehicle for sixty days. On November 15, 1995, 

he was stopped by a Chesterfield County police officer and 

charged with driving on a suspended license. At trial the 

circuit court found Holmes guilty of driving on a suspended 

license, fined him $250, and suspended his license for an 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

additional sixty days. On appeal, Holmes challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he knew his license had 

been suspended effective November 14, 1995. Finding that the 

evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that 

the defendant had actual notice of the suspension of his license 

or privilege to drive, we affirm the defendant's conviction. 

 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, the record proves that on November 14, 1995, the 

defendant was convicted for reckless driving. The warrant from 

the general district court and the judge's notations on it stated 

that the defendant was present at trial and unrepresented by 

counsel, that he pleaded guilty, that he was found guilty as 

charged, that he was fined $100, and that his privilege or 

operator's license was suspended for sixty days. The 

Commonwealth also introduced a transcript of the defendant's 

driving record from the Department (Division) of Motor Vehicles, 

which showed a suspension of the defendant's privilege and 

license with notice on November 14, 1995. 

 On November 15, 1995, when the defendant was stopped in 

relation to the charge on appeal, the defendant did not have an 

operator's license with him so the officer ran a license check 

using his Social Security number. The check revealed that the 

defendant's license had been suspended "with notice" on November 

14, 1995. The officer asked the defendant if he knew that his 

license had been suspended. The defendant "said that he didn't 
- 3 - 

know if his license was suspended or not. He was in court that 

morning prior to me stopping him that night, and he didn't really 

give a yes or a no." 

 At trial, the defendant testified that he did not understand 

that his license was being suspended immediately at the November 

14, 1995 trial. He acknowledged that the judge told him that his 

license was suspended, but stated that the entire encounter 

lasted about thirty seconds and the judge did not tell him when 

the suspension was to begin. After he was convicted, the 

defendant went to the clerk's office where a clerk asked for his 

driver's license, which he testified he did not have with him. 

The clerk had the defendant sign an Acknowledgement of 

Suspension. The acknowledgment form, which has a box to check 

showing the date of suspension, was not checked and did not 

indicate an effective date for the suspension. However, in one 

section on the form, the clerk had written "60 days 1/14/95." 

The form also had a section which stated that the license "will 

be suspended as of 11/24/95 pursuant to Va. Code § 46.2-395 if my 

fine, fees, and costs of $129.00 are not paid by that date and 

that my license must be surrendered to the court by that date." 

 The defendant testified he believed, based upon the 

acknowledgment form, that his license would not be suspended 

until November 24, 1995. 

 "The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is 

entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be set 
- 4 - 

aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Martin v. 

Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). 

 In order to convict an accused of driving on a suspended 

license, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that the accused knew his license had been suspended. Bibb v. 

Commonwealth, 212 Va. 249, 250, 183 S.E.2d 732, 733 (1971); 

Plummer v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 13, 15, 408 S.E.2d 765, 766 

(1991). "[A] suspension is not effective when the order is 

entered but rather when the party charged has been given notice 

of its entry." Plummer, 13 Va. App. at 16, 408 S.E.2d at 766. 

Actual notice is sufficient notice upon which to base a 

conviction for driving on a suspended license. Pitchford v. 

Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 377, 381, 344 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1986). 

 Although the defendant claims that the acknowledgment form 

was misleading and caused him to believe that his privilege to 

drive and operator's license was not suspended until November 24, 

1995, the evidence proves that he had notice of the suspension as 

of November 14, 1995. The defendant admitted that the judge told 

him at the reckless driving trial that his license to operate a 

motor vehicle was suspended for sixty days. The judge asked the 

defendant for his license which he purportedly did not have with 

him. Nevertheless, it was apparent to the defendant that the 

judge was attempting to have him surrender his license at the 

time because his privilege to drive and license were being 
- 5 - 

suspended. Holmes also admitted that he did not have his license 

with him that day. 

 After the trial, the defendant went to the clerk's office 

where the clerk also asked for his license. After the defendant 

explained that he did not have his license, the clerk asked him 

to sign the Acknowledgement of Suspension form. Although Holmes 

argues that the form was confusing and misleading, the section of 

the form which he claims misled him because it contained the 

November 24, 1995 date clearly tells a defendant he will be 

subject to additional suspension for failing to pay his fines or 

surrender his license by a certain date. Any confusion that the 

defendant claims concerning his not having notice of the 

suspension would have been from his attempt to read the form for 

his own benefit, disregarding what the form says, and his 

disregarding what the judge told him. See Speight v. 

Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 83, 88, 354 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1987) (en 

banc) (holding that if the trier of fact finds an accused's 

testimony incredible, he is entitled to infer that the accused 

lied to conceal his guilt). 

 We hold the evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the defendant knew his license had been suspended. 

Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction. 

Affirmed.