Commonwealth v. Eddy
This text of 44 Va. Cir. 115 (Commonwealth v. Eddy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Stafford County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Counsel for Defendant argues that an administrative suspension of a commercial driver’s license for driving while intoxicated pursuant to Code § 46.2-391.2 constitutes a double jeopardy or collateral estoppel bar to subsequent prosecution of that offense.
The basis of this argument involves the definition of “conviction” set forth in Chapter 3, Article 6.1, “Commercial Driver’s Licenses,” in Code § 46.2-341.4, which by its terms includes for alcohol related offenses “an administrative determination of a violation.”
However, Code § 46.2-341.4, the definitional section, states that: “The following definitions shall apply to this article . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Accordingly, and because of this statutory limitation, definitions there contained do not apply to other articles, such as Chapter 7, Article 2, “Crimes Involving Health and Safety,” which includes the prohibition against drunk driving contained in Code § 18.2-266. A “conviction” under the former Article thus cannot be considered a bar to prosecution under the latter Article.
[116]*116In addition, though dealing with non-commercial driver’s licenses, the same argument was rejected in Tench v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 200, 462 S.E.2d 922 (1995); Simmons v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 118, 475 S.E.2d 806 (1996); and Brame v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 122, 476 S.E.2d 177 (1996).
In light of the foregoing, the pleas of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel are overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 Va. Cir. 115, 1997 Va. Cir. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-eddy-vaccstafford-1997.