Com. v. Meadows, 1586-92-3
| Decision Date | 01 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 1586-92-3,1586-92-3 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Virginia v. Jewell Wayne MEADOWS. Record |
Robert B. Condon, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Stephen D. Rosenthal, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellant.
Michael G. Turner, Gretna, for appellee.
Present: MOON, C.J., and COLEMAN and WILLIS, JJ.
The Commonwealth contends that the trial court erred in issuing Jewell Wayne Meadows a restricted motor vehicle operator's license under Code § 46.2-360(2) without requiring the completion of a VASAP program. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings.
Meadows was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol on June 29, 1984, May 13, 1985, and September 15, 1987. On March 18, 1988, the Circuit Court of the City of Martinsville adjudicated him an habitual offender. On July 2, 1992, Meadows petitioned the trial court pursuant to Code § 46.2-360(2) for a restricted driver's license permitting him to drive to, from, and during work. On July 17, 1992, the trial court ordered the issuance of the restricted license. Over the Commonwealth's objection, the trial court refused to condition the issuance of the restricted license upon enrollment in, and successful completion of, a certified VASAP program.
Code § 46.2-360 provides in pertinent part:
Any person who has been found to be an habitual offender ..., may petition the court ...:
2. For a restricted permit to authorize such person to drive a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth in the course of his employment and to drive a motor vehicle to and from his home to the place of his employment after the expiration of three years from the date of the adjudication. The court may order that a restricted license for such purposes be issued in accordance with the procedures of subsection E of § 18.2-271.1....
Code § 18.2-271.1(E) provides in pertinent part:
[W]henever a person enters a certified program pursuant to this section, ... the court may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, provide that such person be issued a restricted permit to operate a motor vehicle for [enumerated purposes].... Such restricted license shall be conditioned upon enrollment within fifteen days in, and successful completion of, a program as described in subsection A of this section....
Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we are bound by that plain statement of legislative intent. See Brown v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hunter v. Com.
- Ames v. Commonwealth
-
Muse Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Va. Bd. for Contractors
...and unambiguous, we are bound by the plain statement of ... intent.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Commonwealth v. Meadows, 17 Va.App. 624, 626, 440 S.E.2d 154, 155 (1994))). As noted above, Rule 2A:4(a) instructs an appellant, in pertinent part, to “tak [e] ... all steps provided in ......
- Ruth v. Commonwealth