COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Overton 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

HENRY LEE DAVIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1279-97-2 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 AUGUST 11, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LUNENBURG COUNTY 

William L. Wellons, Judge 

 Joseph M. Teefey, Jr., Assistant Public 

Defender, for appellant. 

 (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Steven A. 

Witmer, Assistant Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Henry Lee Davis (defendant) appeals his conviction of 

driving in a manner that did endanger the life, limb, or property 

of another while being a habitual offender, in violation of Code 

§ 46.2-357(b)(2). He contends on appeal the trial court applied 

an incorrect legal standard to the facts and, therefore, the 

Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to convict. Because 

we hold the trial court applied the correct standard, and the 

evidence presented was sufficient, we affirm. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in this 

case and because this memorandum opinion has no precedental 

value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 Code § 46.2-357(b)(2) prohibits driving which "does endanger 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

the life, limb, or property of another." This Court in Bishop v. 

Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 206, 210-11, 455 S.E.2d 765, 767 

(1995), determined the prosecution must show recklessness on the 

part of the defendant in order to prove him guilty. Accord

Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 653, 655-56, 460 S.E.2d 

259, 260 (1995). Therefore, we review the lower court's decision 

to see if the recklessness standard was applied. 

 "Absent clear evidence to the contrary in the record, the 

judgement of a trial court comes to us on appeal with a 

presumption that the law was correctly applied to the facts." 

Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 978, 234 S.E.2d 286, 291 

(1977). That presumption is fully justified in the instant 

matter. At the close of evidence, the defendant made a motion to 

strike citing the Commonwealth's failure to prove defendant acted 

recklessly. The Commonwealth erroneously argued it need not 

prove recklessness. Defendant corrected the Commonwealth and 

reminded the court the appropriate legal standard was 

recklessness. The court, after discussing the facts of the case, 

denied the motion to strike and found defendant guilty because 

defendant's conduct met "the statutory requirements that the 

operation of the vehicle does endanger the life, limb or property 

of another." This argument among the attorneys and the court 

indicates the trial court was aware of the correct standard and 

applied it to the facts. 

 Those facts, taken in the light most favorable to the 
- 3 - 

Commonwealth, were sufficient to convict defendant. See Traverso 

v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988). 

 Defendant drove his vehicle down a dirt road at a high, although 

legal, speed. He was intoxicated. Upon entering a curve, he 

turned the car twice, flipped it onto its roof and landed on the 

right side of the road. This conduct clearly endangered the 

life, limb, and property of another and rose to the standard of 

recklessness. See, e.g., Travis v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 

410, 417, 457 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1995); Lawrence, 20 Va. App. at 

657, 460 S.E.2d at 260-61 (weaving into oncoming traffic lane 

while intoxicated was sufficient). Combined with the undisputed 

fact defendant was a habitual offender, these facts fully 

supported the conviction. 

 Because the trial court applied the correct legal standard 

to the facts and the facts were sufficient to prove defendant's 

guilt, his conviction is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.