COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Clements 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

JAMES M. HEGEDUS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2732-00-3 JUDGE JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS 

 OCTOBER 30, 2001 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF BUENA VISTA 

Humes J. Franklin, Jr., Judge 

 H. David Natkin for appellant. 

 Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

 James M. Hegedus was convicted in a bench trial of driving 

under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor, in violation of 

Code § 18.2-266. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial 

court erred in admitting into evidence the certificate of breath 

analysis where the machine used to measure the alcohol content of 

Hegedus' breath had not been calibrated in strict compliance with 

the regulations established by the Department of Criminal Justice 

Services, Division of Forensic Science. Finding no error, we 

affirm the conviction. 

 As the parties are fully conversant with the record in this 

case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential 
value, this opinion recites only those facts and incidents of the 

proceedings as necessary to the parties' understanding of the 

disposition of this appeal. 

 The evidence is before us on an agreed statement of facts. 

On April 3, 2000, Officer Darrell M. Slagle, of the Buena Vista 

Police Department, clocked Hegedus travelling forty-three miles 

per hour in a twenty-five mile-per-hour zone. Officer Slagle 

stopped Hegedus and subsequently placed him under arrest for 

driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-266. 

 Thereafter, Officer Slagle administered a breath-analysis 

test to Hegedus using the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine. The officer 

conducted the test in accordance with the training he had received 

for the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine. Pursuant to that training, the 

validation test of the machine was performed before, rather than 

after, Hegedus gave a sample of his breath. Upon completion of 

the breath-analysis test, the machine showed that Hegedus had a 

blood alcohol content of ".09 grams per 210 liters of breath." 

 The only issue before us on appeal is Hegedus' claim that the 

trial court erred in admitting the certificate of breath analysis 

into evidence because, although the subject breath test was 

performed in accordance with the officer's training for the 

Intoxilyzer 5000, the test was not conducted in strict compliance 

- 2 -
with administrative regulation 1 VAC 30-50-90(C),1 which required 

that the validation test of the machine be performed immediately 

after, rather than before, the breath sample is given. 

 We addressed the same issue in Rollins v. Commonwealth, ___ 

Va. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2001), decided this day. In that 

case, Rollins argued, like Hegedus, that the operator's failure to 

conduct the validation test of the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine 

immediately after the breath analysis, as specifically required by 

1 VAC 30-50-90(C), rendered the certificate of breath analysis 

inadmissible. We held, however, that, because the breath-test 

methods set forth by the Department of Criminal Justice Services, 

Division of Forensic Science in 1 VAC 30-50-90 were procedural, 

rather than substantive, in nature, substantial, rather than 

strict, compliance with those methods was sufficient. Id. at 

___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. We further concluded that the trial court 

properly admitted the certificate of breath analysis into 

evidence, because the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine operator in that 

case, "having administered the breath-analysis test to Rollins in 

accordance with 1 VAC 30-50-90(A), substantially complied with the 

breath-test methods approved by the Department of Criminal Justice 

Services, Division of Forensic Science." Id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d 

at ___. 

 1

 Although applicable to this case, 1 VAC 30-50-90 has since 

been amended and renumbered as 6 VAC 20-190-110(3). 

- 3 -
 The same reasoning and conclusions are equally applicable 

here. Thus, for the reasons more particularly stated in Rollins, 

we affirm Hegedus' conviction. 

 Affirmed.

- 4 -