Source: http://lawyersinlynchburgvirginia.blogspot.in/2014/
Timestamp: 2017-10-22 04:19:32
Document Index: 21100343

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 18', '§ 46', '§ 19', '§ 18', '§ 46', '§ 19', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46']

Lawyers In Lynchburg Virginia: 2014
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Misdemeanor Evidence
9:18 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Ryland v. Commonwealth
In a reckless driving case, Defendant appealed his conviction for eluding a police officer in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817(B) by the Circuit Court of Lynchburg (Virginia), claiming the evidence was insufficient to prove that he endangered the operation of the police vehicle or a person.
If you are facing a traffic case in Lynchburg Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817(C) is clearly intended to enhance punishment for a violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817(A) when such offense is aggravated by specified conduct, coincidentally a species of reckless driving. Thus, application of the provision is expressly limited to persons convicted of a misdemeanor under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817(A).
Violations of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817 do not constitute a reckless driving offense.
With respect to the endangerment of persons sufficient to constitute a felonious violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817(B), a manifest purpose of the statute is to protect the public against a driver eluding police so as to endanger a person.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Second Offense
6:33 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Defendant sought review of a decision by the Circuit Court of Lynchburg (Virginia), which convicted him of reckless driving and overruled his motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which convicted defendant of reckless driving and overruled his motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The court remanded the case for a new trial.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Felony Eluding
Sauls v. Commonwealth
In a reckless driving case after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg, Virginia, defendant was convicted of felony eluding (Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817(B)). He appealed.
The language of Va. Code Ann. Code § 46.2-817 evidences the legislature's intent to authorize a separate punishment for felony eluding.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Evidence Influence Alcohol
6:57 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Sherlock v. Commonwealth
A police detective followed a car in Lynchburg in which defendant was a passenger because it was being driven erratically. The driver of the car pulled into a church and school parking lot. When the detective confronted the driver in the parking lot, he smelled alcohol on his breath and arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol and for reckless driving.
When probable cause exists to arrest a person, a constitutionally permissible search of the person incident to arrest may be conducted by an officer either before or after the arrest if the search is contemporaneous with the arrest.
When considering a sufficiency of the evidence question not properly preserved at trial, the appellant must do more than show that the Commonwealth failed to prove an element or elements of the offense. Otherwise, an appellate court would be required under the ends of justice exception to address the merits of every case where a defendant has failed to move to strike the Commonwealth's evidence as being insufficient to prove an element of the offense. Such a rule would obviate the requirement for making an adequate motion to strike or a contemporaneous objection that the evidence was insufficient. The exception therefore will not be invoked unless the evidence affirmatively shows that an element of the offense did not occur.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Violation Code 18.2-266
6:26 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg (Virginia) of DUI in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. He had previously pled guilty to speeding in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-870. Both charges arose from the same course of driving. He asserted that the DUI conviction was barred by Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1 because the speeding conviction constituted a conviction for reckless driving.
11:09 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Jason v. Commonwealth
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg (Virginia) of DUI in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. He had previously pled guilty to speeding in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-870. Both charges arose from the same course of driving. He asserted that the DUI conviction was barred by Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1 because the speeding conviction constituted a conviction for reckless driving..
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Speeding
10:35 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
1:51 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Philip v. Commonwealth
Defendant challenged his conviction for feloniously driving a motor vehicle after having been adjudicated a habitual offender in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2) in the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg (Virginia).
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the court views the record in the light most favorable to the commonwealth, granting it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and the decision will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
Labels: : Have you been charged with Reckless Driving in Lynchburg Virginia and you are wondering what the penalty is in VA? Call 888-437-7747 for help.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg 46.2-852 Code
4:25 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Gray v. Commonwealth
Defendant appealed from an order of the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg (Virginia), which convicted him for reckless driving and feloniously driving after having been adjudicated an habitual offender in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 46.2-852 and 46.2-357(B)(2), respectively, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions..
Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852 provides, in part, that any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852..
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Support
4:04 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Corish v. Commonwealth
Defendant's convictions arose out of an incident in which another driver lost control of her vehicle, allegedly due to defendant's driving. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support both convictions. Contrary to defendant's argument, the appellate court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for reckless driving.
"Involve" is defined, in pertinent part, as to draw in as a participant, to implicate, to relate closely, to connect, to have an effect on, to concern directly, to affect. Nothing in these definitions suggests that, for purposes of determining criminal liability under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-894, a driver must have legally caused an accident in order to be considered "involved" in the accident..
7:29 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862 provides that a person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit of forty miles per hour or more.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Violation
After two police officers put a be-on-the-lookout bulletin on the radio for a vehicle that had been driving recklessly in Lynchburg, a detective stopped the vehicle a short distance away. The detective removed defendant from the vehicle and patted him down for weapons. The detective felt a bulge in defendant's sock that he believed to be some type of weapon. The bulge was a glassine tube containing cocaine. The trial judge found that the officer stopped defendant based on a report of reckless driving and conducted the pat down for safety reasons.
Ruling that an officer's authority to require a driver to exit a vehicle following a lawful stop for a traffic violation is an additional intrusion that can only be described as de minimus, the United States Supreme Court implicitly rejects the notion of requiring the "least intrusive investigation."
The authorization for a frisk for weapons arises from the holding in Terry that a police officer is permitted to frisk a suspect's outer clothing if the officer can point to specific and articulable facts that, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably lead the officer to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot and that the suspect may be armed and presently dangerous.
Even in high crime areas, where the possibility that any given individual is armed is significant, Terry requires reasonable, individualized suspicion before a frisk for weapons can be conducted.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Double Jeopardy
10:10 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
An officer activated his signal and pursued the car defendant was driving in Lynchburg; it turned into a gas station, accelerated, and re-entered the road without stopping or slowing down, causing other vehicles to brake or stop. Defendant pled guilty to reckless driving in district court. He argued the prosecution failed to prove that he endangered a person or the operation of a law enforcement vehicle, as required to convict him of violating § 46.2-817(B). The appellate court disagreed.
When considering on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence presented below, the appellate court presumes the judgment of the trial court to be correct and reverses only if the trial court's decision is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Under this standard, the appellate court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence. Instead, it asks whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the context of the double jeopardy bar, considering Va. Code Ann. §§ 46.2-852 and 46.2-817(B) together, both contain different elements. The reckless driving statute, § 46.2-852, requires that the accused be driving on a highway, whereas the felony eluding statute, § 46.2-817(B), does not necessitate that the accused drive on a particular roadway. Section 46.2-852 provides that a violation may occur if the accused endangers any property of a person. Section 46.2-817(B), however, provides that a violation occurs only where the accused endangers the operation of a law enforcement vehicle, but not the law enforcement vehicle itself. It further requires that the accused receive a visible or audible signal from a police officer to stop his vehicle. Moreover, 46.2-817(B), unlike § 46.2-852, proscribes the driving of the accused only after he has disregarded an officer's signal to stop. Thus, ifelony eluding and reckless driving constitute separate offenses in that different facts are required to prove each.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Regulations Violation
12:20 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Immanuel v. Commonwealth
The Circuit Court of Lynchburg (Virginia) convicted defendant of involuntary manslaughter and reckless driving. Defendant appealed his conviction for involuntary manslaughter.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has not limited criminal negligence to cases involving conduct taking place over a specified period of time or distance. To the contrary, the Supreme Court of Virginia has found the existence of criminal negligence when a defendant has engaged in a single negligent act showing a reckless disregard of life.
Virginia Traffic Lawyers Reckless Driving Lynchburg Violation Code 46.2-862
3:31 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Moses v. Commonwealth
A jury in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg (Virginia) convicted defendant of reckless driving by speed, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862. Defendant appealed.