Saunders v. Com., Record No. 1299-05-3.
| Docket Nº | Record No. 1299-05-3. |
| Citation | 48 Va. App. 196, 629 S.E.2d 701 |
| Case Date | May 16, 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Virginia |
Page 701
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Page 702
J. Patterson Rogers, 3rd, for appellant.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General (Judith Williams Jagdmann, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: ELDER and McCLANAHN, JJ., and COLEMAN, Senior Judge.
LARRY G. ELDER, Judge.
Marvin James Saunders (appellant) appeals from his conviction for driving after having been declared a habitual offender in violation of Code § 46.2-357, his fourth such conviction. On appeal, he contends operating a moped does not constitute a violation of Code § 46.2-357 because it is neither a motor vehicle nor self-propelled machinery within the meaning of that statute. In the alternative, he contends the evidence he was operating a moped was insufficient to support his conviction because, although the statute prohibits a habitual offender from operating a motor vehicle or self-propelled machinery after having been forbidden to do so, his order of conviction prohibited him from operating only a motor vehicle. We hold a moped is self-propelled machinery within the meaning of Code § 46.2-357 and that no applicable statute required appellant to be instructed he could not operate a moped or other self-propelled machinery before he could be convicted for violating Code § 46.2-357. Thus, we affirm the challenged conviction.
By order entered December 12, 1995, appellant was adjudged a habitual offender. The order indicated that he was "prohibited from operating a motor vehicle on the highways of the Commonwealth of Virginia for a period of ten years from the date of this order and until the privilege . . . has been restored by a court of competent jurisdiction." Appellant was convicted in 1999, 2000, and 2002 of driving after having been declared a habitual offender.
On August 23, 2004, Officer Robert Worsham observed appellant, who was operating a moped in the City of Danville, fail to stop for a stop sign. Officer Worsham stopped appellant and issued him a summons for that offense.
Officer Worsham knew appellant was a habitual offender and later spoke to the Commonwealth's attorney about whether appellant was permitted to operate a moped. Thereafter, appellant was indicted for "unlawfully and feloniously driv[ing] self-propelled machinery or equipment on a highway" while an order declaring him a habitual offender was still in effect, after having been convicted of that same offense on three prior occasions.1
Page 703
At trial, appellant contended the statute did not proscribe his riding a moped because, although this Court held in Diggs v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 300, 369 S.E.2d 199 (1988) (en banc), that mopeds are "self-propelled machinery," the General Assembly subsequently changed the relevant definitions. He also argued that, even if a moped is self-propelled equipment, the order adjudicating him a habitual offender "only ban[ned] him from operating a motor vehicle" and, thus, that he could not be convicted for operating self-propelled machinery or equipment.
The trial court rejected those arguments and convicted appellant of "Fourth Offense Driv[ing] After Being Declared An Habitual Offender."
Appellant was convicted for violating Code § 46.2-357, which provides in relevant part that "It shall be unlawful for any person determined or adjudicated an habitual offender to drive any motor vehicle or self-propelled machinery or equipment on the highways of the Commonwealth while the revocation of the person's driving privilege remains in effect." Code § 46.2-357(A) [hereinafter "the habitual offender statute"]. Since 1981, Code § 46.2-100 has expressly excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle" as used in all parts of Title 46.2, with the present exception of Chapter 8 thereof (Code §§ 46.2-800 to -947), "any device herein defined as a . . . moped." See 1981 Va. Acts, ch. 585. Appellant contends a moped as defined in Code § 46.2-100 also is not "self-propelled machinery or equipment" within the meaning of Code § 46.2-357. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.
"In construing statutes, courts are charged with ascertaining and giving effect to the intent of the legislature." Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Hill, 254 Va. 88, 91, 488 S.E.2d 345, 346 (1997). "That intention is initially found in the words of the statute itself, and if those words are clear and unambiguous, we do not rely on rules of statutory construction or parol evidence, unless a literal application would produce a meaningless or absurd result." Id. We give the words of a statute "their common, ordinary and accepted meaning," absent an indication by the legislature to the contrary. Gen. Trading Corp. v. Motor Vehicle Dealer Bd., 28 Va. App. 264, 268, 503 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1998). Absent ambiguity, "the manifest intent of the legislature clearly expressed in its enactments should not be judicially thwarted under the guise of statutory construction." Cregger v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 87, 90, 486 S.E.2d 554, 555 (1997). If a statute is ambiguous,
"[l]egislative intent may . . . be gleaned by consulting other statutes "using the same phraseology," [Gilliam v. Commonwealth, 21 Va.App. 519, 523, 465 S.E.2d 592, 594 (1996)], and "[`]statutes which relate to the same subject matter should be read, construed and applied together[,']" Alger v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 252, 256, 450 S.E.2d 765, 767 (1994) [(quoting Black's Law Dictionary 791 (6th ed. 1990))]."
Rasmussen v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 233, 238, 522 S.E.2d 401, 403 (1999).
In Diggs, 6 Va.App. 300, 369 S.E.2d 199, we considered the meaning of the term "self-propelled machinery or equipment" as it appeared in Code § 46.1-350(a), predecessor to present Code § 46.2-301(B). At that time, Code § 46.1-350(a) provided in relevant part that "`[N]o person, resident or nonresident, whose driver's license or instruction permit or privilege to drive a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked . . . shall thereafter drive any motor vehicle or any self-propelled
Page 704
machinery or equipment on any highway in this Commonwealth. . . .'" Diggs, 6 Va.App. at 301 n. 2, 369 S.E.2d at 200 n. 2 (quoting Code § 46.1-350(a) [hereinafter "the suspension statute"]). We held the term "self-propelled machinery" as used in the suspension statute was clear, had only one meaning and, therefore, was not ambiguous:
"Self-propelled" is an adjective meaning "[c]ontaining its own means of propulsion. . . ." American Heritage Dictionary, 1113 (2d College ed. 1982). Machinery refers to "[m]achines or machine parts collectively," while a machine is "[a] system, usually of rigid bodies, formed and connected to alter, transmit, and direct applied forces in a predetermined manner to accomplish a specific objective. . . ." Id. at 751.
Id. at 302, 369 S.E.2d at 200. We further held under this definition that "a moped is a `self-propelled' machine." Id.
We hold that in the habitual offender statute, just as in the suspension statute, the term "self-propelled machinery" is not ambiguous and includes mopeds. See Code § 46.2-357; Diggs, 6 Va.App. at 302, 369 S.E.2d at 200. However, even if we were to conclude the term "self-propelled machinery" is ambiguous as used in the habitual offender statute,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaynes v. Com., Record No. 1054-05-4.
...`their common, ordinary and accepted meaning,' absent an indication by the legislature to the contrary." Saunders v. Commonwealth, 48 Va.App. 196, 201, 629 S.E.2d 701, 703 (2006); see also Stein v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 65, 68, 402 S.E.2d 238, 241 (1991) (citing Lovisi v. Commonwealth, 2......
-
Carroll v. Com., No. 1860-08-4.
...98 Constitutions. Constitutional questions are not immune from the requirements of Rule 5A:12(c). See e.g. Saunders v. Commonwealth, 48 Va.App. 196, 207, 629 S.E.2d 701, 706 (2006) ("To the extent appellant's argument may raise due process notice issues, he did not include a due process cla......
-
Bishop v. Com., Record No. 1382-05-1.
...733, 561 S.E.2d 46, 49 (2002), rev'd, 265 Va. 430, 578 S.E.2d 758 (2003). Reed remains good law. See, e.g., Saunders v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 196, 206, 629 S.E.2d 701, 705-06 The notice requirement prescribed by Reed in the context of an inter partes judicial proceeding applies with at ......
-
Bledsoe v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1835-16-3
...construing statutes, courts are charged with ascertaining and giving effect to the intent of the legislature." Saunders v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 196, 201, 629 S.E.2d 701, 703 (2006) (quoting Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Hill, 254 Va. 88, 91, 488 S.E.2d 345, 346 (1997)). "That intentio......
-
Jaynes v. Com., Record No. 1054-05-4.
...`their common, ordinary and accepted meaning,' absent an indication by the legislature to the contrary." Saunders v. Commonwealth, 48 Va.App. 196, 201, 629 S.E.2d 701, 703 (2006); see also Stein v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 65, 68, 402 S.E.2d 238, 241 (1991) (citing Lovisi v. Commonwealth, 2......
-
Carroll v. Com., No. 1860-08-4.
...98 Constitutions. Constitutional questions are not immune from the requirements of Rule 5A:12(c). See e.g. Saunders v. Commonwealth, 48 Va.App. 196, 207, 629 S.E.2d 701, 706 (2006) ("To the extent appellant's argument may raise due process notice issues, he did not include a due process cla......
-
Bishop v. Com., Record No. 1382-05-1.
...733, 561 S.E.2d 46, 49 (2002), rev'd, 265 Va. 430, 578 S.E.2d 758 (2003). Reed remains good law. See, e.g., Saunders v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 196, 206, 629 S.E.2d 701, 705-06 The notice requirement prescribed by Reed in the context of an inter partes judicial proceeding applies with at ......
-
Bledsoe v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1835-16-3
...construing statutes, courts are charged with ascertaining and giving effect to the intent of the legislature." Saunders v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 196, 201, 629 S.E.2d 701, 703 (2006) (quoting Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Hill, 254 Va. 88, 91, 488 S.E.2d 345, 346 (1997)). "That intentio......