Tag Archives: Criminal Case

Using Radar Defense With Lidar Henrico Virginia

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Traffic Laws

≈ Comments Off on Using Radar Defense With Lidar Henrico Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a Lidar based charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar In Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Using Radar Defense With Lidar Richmond Lawyers Virginia Felony Motor Vehicle

Michael v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Henrico (Virginia) that entered judgment in favor of appellee in an action alleging that after appellant had been judged a habitual offender, he drove in such a manner as to endanger the life, limb, or property of another, a violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2). With no proof as to whether the officer has caught the Appellant, using radar (Lidar), the Appellant took the defense that there was no evidence in the record as to appellant’s actually driving.

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • The reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom
  • Under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2) any person found to be an habitual offender under this article, who is thereafter convicted of driving a motor vehicle while the revocation determination is in effect shall be guilty of a felony if such driving of itself endangers the life, limb, or property of another or takes place while such person is in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, irrespective of whether the driving of itself endangers the life, limb or property of another and one of the offender’s underlying convictions is for Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-36.1, 18.2-266 or a parallel local ordinance
  • The reviewing court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar In Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Henrico Virginia Hit Run Property Damage Charge

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Traffic Laws

≈ Comments Off on Henrico Virginia Hit Run Property Damage Charge

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Walter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The driver sued by the passengers pled guilty to felony hit and run. The contribution statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34, was in derogation of the common law and had to be strictly construed. Assuming, without deciding, that felony hit and run, under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-894, was a crime involving moral turpitude, the actions of the driver which raised his conduct to one involving moral turpitude occurred after the vehicles collided, and the passengers were injured and also caused damage to the property. Rather than finding that all of the driver’s actions, from driving to leaving the scene, were one continuous course of conduct, it was better to let the trier of fact decide if the driver’s conduct involved moral turpitude. The driver did not have to be at fault in causing the accident to be guilty of hit and run.

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • A person does not have to be at fault in causing an accident to be guilty of hit and run. The moral turpitude in hit and run, excluding contribution under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34, is mutually exclusive from a defendant’s allegedly negligent driving that resulted in the accident.
  • It is clear that under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34 contribution lies when the negligence of two or more wrongdoers (joint tortfeasors) cause an indivisible injury to one person. Contribution is available when the wrong results from negligence and involves no moral turpitude.

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Police Prove Passed School Bus Henrico Virginia

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Reckless Driving Laws

≈ Comments Off on Police Prove Passed School Bus Henrico Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus In Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Kenith v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appellant challenged his conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-30, 18.2-36, entered in the Circuit Court of Henrico (Virginia), claiming the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offense for which he had been detained by the police. The Commonwealth was able to prove that if the appellant’s attention were not diverted, he would have seen the school bus signs and flashing lights before he passed it. Judgment affirmed.

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The judgment of a trial court will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support it
  • Criminal negligence is the basis for involuntary manslaughter and has been defined as acting consciously in disregard of another person’s rights or acting with reckless indifference to the consequences, with the defendant aware, from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that his conduct probably would cause injury to another.
  • A defendant accused of criminal negligence must have had prior knowledge of specific conditions that would likely cause injury to others.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Virginia State Law Henrico Reckless Driving

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Reckless Driving Laws

≈ Comments Off on Virginia State Law Henrico Reckless Driving

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reckless Driving State Law – Virginia Lawyers

If you have been charged with a violation of reckless driving state law in Virginia and you are concerned about a conviction, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Reckless driving state law in Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Shawn v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The driver of a car was killed when it was struck by a police cruiser during a high-speed chase to apprehend defendant. The Court of Appeals of Virginia State affirmed defendant’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter. The present court awarded defendant an appeal, in which he argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Since defendant had not assigned error to the Court of Appeals’ holding that his driving conduct was criminally negligent, that holding was binding on appeal. Proximate causation was the only remaining issue. Because defendant’s actions put into operation the high-speed chase, the officer’s intervening actions were not a superseding cause that alone caused the driver’s death

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • The Supreme Court of Virginia has defined criminal negligence with reference to gross negligence. Gross negligence is punishable as criminal negligence when acts of a wanton or willful character, committed or omitted, show a reckless or indifferent disregard of the rights of others, under circumstances reasonably calculated to produce injury, or which make it not improbable that injury will be occasioned, and the offender knows, or is charged with the knowledge of, the probable result of his acts. To convict a defendant of involuntary manslaughter based on such acts of criminal negligence, the Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant’s criminally negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the victim’s death
  • When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the circuit court, and the appellate court accords the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.

Reckless driving state law in Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Possession Marijuana Henrico Virginia

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Drugs Laws

≈ Comments Off on Possession Marijuana Henrico Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Possession Of Marijuana – Virginia Lawyers

If you have been charged with a Possession Of Marijuana charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Possession Of Marijuana Defense in Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Smith Jones v. Commonwealth

Facts:

After defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, a divided panel of the appellate court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had guilty knowledge of the marijuana. The appellate court granted the Commonwealth’s petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the mandate of the panel’s decision. On rehearing en banc, the appellate court currently lifted the stay and affirmed the conviction. The commonwealth filed a petition for rehearing en banc after a divided panel of the appellate court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had guilty knowledge of the marijuana. Defendant had been convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-248.1.

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • In a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance, the Commonwealth must produce evidence sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s possession of the drug was knowing and intentional. Actual or constructive possession alone is not sufficient. The Commonwealth must also establish that the defendant intentionally and consciously possessed it with knowledge of its nature and character. That knowledge is an essential element of the crime.
  • Constructive possession may be established by evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of both the presence and the character of the substance and that it was subject to his dominion and control.

Possession Of Marijuana Defense in Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Henrico Virginia Drug Lawyer

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Drugs Laws

≈ Comments Off on Henrico Virginia Drug Lawyer

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Drug Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you have been charged with a Drug charge in Virginia and you are concerned about a conviction, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Drug Defense in Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Julian v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Following the denial of his motion to dismiss for improper venue, the trial court convicted defendant of three counts of causing a juvenile to assist in the distribution of marijuana to a third party, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-255(A)(ii). The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed. Defendant appealed. The supreme court found no error in the appellate court’s refusal to address defendant’s claim that § 18.2-255(A)(ii) prohibited causing a person under 18 years of age to assist in the distribution of drug to another juvenile, as defendant failed to make that argument to the trial court and thus, did not preserve the issue for appellate review

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

  • The general venue statute provides for prosecution of a crime in the county or city in which the crime was committed, except as otherwise provided by law. Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-244. Application of § 19.2-244 requires a determination of where a specific crime was “committed.” This determination is straightforward when the crime is a discrete act.
  • Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-255(A)(ii) makes it a crime for any person over the age of 18 to knowingly or intentionally cause a person under the age of 18 to assist in the distribution of marijuana. This crime involves a number of actions which must be taken by more than one person. To secure a conviction, the Commonwealth must prove that a defendant not only knowingly or intentionally performed an act which caused the juvenile to assist in the distribution of the contraband, but also that the juvenile assisted in the actual distribution of the contraband to a third party. If there is no distribution to a third party, there is no violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-255(A)(ii). Furthermore, the actions of the defendant and those of the juvenile who assists in the distribution of the contraband may not always be in the same jurisdiction.

Drug Defense in Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Juvenile Drug Charges Henrico Lawyer

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Drugs Laws

≈ Comments Off on Juvenile Drug Charges Henrico Lawyer

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Juvenile Drug Charges – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about Juvenile Drug Charges and need a lawyer in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Juvenile Drug Charges Defense – Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Luther Jr. v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Circuit Court of Henrico County Virginia found defendant Luther Jr. guilty of the three drug charges and sentenced him to a total of twenty-three years with sixteen years suspended, a $ 2,500 fine, and suspension of his operator’s license for six months. Defendant Juvenile appealed from the Circuit Court, which convicted him of possession and transportation of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm with intent to distribute a controlled substance.

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • If evidence of intent to distribute is wholly circumstantial, all necessary circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Circumstantial proof of a defendant’s intent includes the quantity of the drugs discovered, the packaging of the drugs, and the presence or absence of drug paraphernalia. Expert testimony, usually that of a police officer familiar with narcotics, is routinely offered to prove the significance of the weight and packaging of drugs regarding whether it is for personal use..
  • Where a void juvenile court order purports to transfer jurisdiction over the juvenile to a circuit court to be tried as an adult, the circuit court is without jurisdiction and the resulting conviction orders are void, unless the necessary parties have waived the defect or the defect has been otherwise corrected.

Juvenile Drug Charges Defense – Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Penalty Illegal Prescription Drugs Henrico Virginia

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Drugs Laws

≈ Comments Off on Penalty Illegal Prescription Drugs Henrico Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Penalty Illegal Prescription Drugs Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you have a Illegal Prescription Drugs Charge in Virginia and are concerned about the penalty you may be facing, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Penalty Illegal Prescription Drugs Charge Defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Williams v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Criminal defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-250, penalty for violation, guilty of a Class 5 felony. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred in holding that the police officer lawfully seized a prescription bottle and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The court found the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the prescription bottle as the product of an illegal search and seizure because the circumstances gave the officer probable cause to believe that the prescription bottle contained illegal drugs; therefore, he was justified in making a warrantless entry of the vehicle to seize the prescription bottle and in examining its contents. Defendant’s nervousness and his attempt to hide the pill bottle supported the trial court’s finding that he knew the pill bottle contained illicit drugs.

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • In order to convict a person of illegal possession of an illicit drug, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware of the presence and character of the drug and that the accused consciously possessed it. Physical possession giving the defendant immediate and exclusive control is sufficient. The duration of the possession is immaterial and need not always be shown to have been actual possession.
  • The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented.

Penalty Illegal Prescription Drugs Charge Defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

18.2-308.4 Virginia Henrico Drug Felony Firearm Penalty

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Drugs Laws

≈ Comments Off on 18.2-308.4 Virginia Henrico Drug Felony Firearm Penalty

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

18.2-308.4 Drug Felony Firearm Charge & Penalty – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a 18.2-308.4 Drug Felony Firearm Charge & Penalty in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

18.2-308.4 Drug Felony Firearm Charge & Penalty defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Kimberly v. Commonwealth

Facts:

After a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Henrico, Virginia, defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute and possessing a firearm while possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute (Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.4(C)). He appealed the latter conviction. In his appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, defendant argued that his conviction under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.4(C) required the Commonwealth to prove actual, simultaneous possession of both the drugs and the firearm. The appellate court rejected that argument, and the present court granted an appeal as to that issue.

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • There can be no dispute that the purpose of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.4 is to establish three categories of crimes relating to possession of controlled substances and firearms at the same time. Although the General Assembly chose to use the word “while” in § 18.2-308.4(C) rather than “simultaneously” which it used in § 18.2-308.4(A) and (B), there is no meaningful difference between the two words. “While” is defined as during the time that, and “simultaneous” is defined as existing or occurring at the same time. Thus, both have the temporal meaning of at the same time.
  • Code § 18.2-308.4, proscribes three separate offenses, each of which is defined therein as a Class 6 felony. The offenses in subsections (A) and (B) are defined with almost identical language as the unlawful possession of certain enumerated controlled substances while “simultaneously with knowledge and intent possessing any firearm.” Subsection (A) proscribes any such possession of a firearm, while subsection (B) proscribes such possession if the firearm is “on or about [the defendant’s] person,” and subsection (B) provides a heightened penalty under those circumstances–“a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of two years.”
  • A conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm or controlled substance may be based solely on evidence of constructive possession. Nothing in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.4(C) alters or suggests an intent to alter that principle.

18.2-308.4 Drug Felony Firearm Charge & Penalty defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009

Deal Drug Charge Henrico Virginia

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Henrico Virginia Drugs Laws

≈ Comments Off on Deal Drug Charge Henrico Virginia

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dealing Drug Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a Drug Charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Drug Charge defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

James Peter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

A police officer was conducting surveillance of a known drug area and listening to transmissions made by another undercover officer who was participating in a drug sale. The undercover officer informed the other officer that the drug seller, a black man, was leaving the building. Defendant was the next black man to leave the building and, when he saw the officer approach, defendant threw something away. Defendant was arrested and a pager and money were found on him. Cocaine was discovered near the arrest scene. Defendant was convicted of the drug charge, and the court affirmed the judgment, finding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction.

If you are facing a criminal case in Henrico, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • An appeals court will not disturb a trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search unless the holding is plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
  • Probable cause is more than “mere suspicion.” Probable cause deals with probabilities, factual and practical considerations in everyday life on which reasonable and prudent persons, not legal technicians, act.
  • Possession of a quantity of drugs greater than that ordinarily possessed for personal use can prove intent to distribute.

Drug Charge defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-804-201-9009