DUI Attorney Virginia

Penna R. Grafton v. Commonwealth of Virginia
CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA
December 22, 1999, Decided

On December 20, 1997, the Commissioner of DMV determined that the petitioner’s record reflected that she was a habitual offender and revoked her operator’s license.  In making that determination, DMV relied upon three DUI convictions, two of which occurred in Maryland.  The petitioner contends that the repeal divests the court of statutory authority to affirm DMV’s determination; therefore, she argues, the DMV determination should not be affirmed and should be dismissed.  Petitioner challenged a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) determination that she was a habitual offender, and revocation of her operator’s license.

Issue:

Whether the repeal of the habitual offender statutes divests the court of statutory authority to affirm DMV’s determination?

Discussion:

The court finds that repeal of the habitual offender statutes could not divest it of authority to review DMV determinations made prior to the repeal.  Otherwise, those determinations, even those made the day before the statutes were repealed, would be binding without any hearing or opportunity to be heard in any forum and completely non-reviewable. Also, after reviewing the predicate offenses, the court found that Maryland’s driving under the influence (DUI) laws were in substantial conformance to Virginia’s DUI laws, so that the petitioner’s 1990 and 1995 Maryland convictions were properly considered by the DMV in making its habitual offender determination. Further the court found that petitioner was not eligible for restoration of her license under any statutory provision, because only two years had passed since she was declared an habitual offender.  Hence this Court affirmed the determination and states that the repeal of the habitual offender statutes had no impact on a Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) determination made prior to July 1, 1999, and because Maryland’s driving under the influence (DUI) laws were in substantial conformance to Virginia’s DUI laws, petitioner’s 1990 and 1995 Maryland convictions were properly considered by the DMV in making its habitual offender determination.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Originally published here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.