Yoder v. Commonwealth

Decision Date12 December 2019
Docket NumberRecord No. 190047
Citation835 S.E.2d 897
Parties Michelle Dawn YODER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

This appeal arises from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming Michelle Yoder's conviction for driving after forfeiture of her license, third offense in ten years, in violation of Code § 18.2-272(A). Yoder contends that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming her conviction because the evidence was insufficient to prove that she had had actual notice that her license was revoked on the date of the instant offense. Yoder also claims that the Court of Appeals did not address the link between any notice that she may have had of prior revocations and a revocation that was current on the date of the instant offense. We disagree with Yoder's arguments and affirm.

I.

"On appeal, we review the evidence in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court." Commonwealth v. Perkins , 295 Va. 323, 323, 812 S.E.2d 212 (2018) (per curiam) (citation omitted). "Viewing the record through this evidentiary prism requires us to ‘discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.’ " Id. at 323-24, 812 S.E.2d 212 (citation omitted).

So viewed, the evidence at trial showed that on June 18, 2016, a deputy with the Augusta County Sheriff's Office initiated a traffic stop on a gray Toyota van because its "rear license plate was only affixed at one screw position at an angle which [he] thought was suspicious" and because, when he checked the license-plate number, it came back as registered to "a 1999 gold Buick." J.A. at 40. Yoder was driving the vehicle with no passengers. When the deputy approached the vehicle and asked Yoder for her identification, she provided him with "an ID card." Id. at 41. At this point, the deputy also noticed that Yoder had an expired state-inspection sticker. The deputy then checked the status of Yoder's driver's license using the ID card that she had provided, and Yoder's license "came back as being revoked, DUI related." Id. "[He] then ran a driver transcript on [his] terminal in the vehicle," which confirmed that Yoder "had three previous convictions." Id. The deputy then arrested Yoder.

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced two of Yoder's prior convictions, entered in July 2010 and March 2014, for driving on a revoked license in violation of Code § 18.2-272. See J.A. at 67-68. Both conviction orders came from the general district court and noted that Yoder had been present in court, had pleaded guilty to the offense, and had been found "GUILTY AS CHARGED." Id. Based upon the 2014 conviction, Yoder was sentenced to 90 days in jail with all but 10 days suspended. See id. at 67.

Sitting as factfinder, the trial court found Yoder guilty of driving after forfeiture of her license, third offense in ten years, in violation of Code § 18.2-272(A). Yoder appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed her conviction in an unpublished opinion. See Yoder v. Commonwealth , Record No. 1023-17-3, 2018 WL 6497086 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018). Specifically, the Court of Appeals found the evidence "sufficient to support the trial court's finding that [Yoder] had actual notice that her driving privileges remained revoked at the time of the instant offense." Id. at *4.

II.
A.

Yoder first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction, contending that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had had actual notice of the continuing revoked status of her driver's license on the date of the instant offense. Our appellate review of such challenges follows a well-marked path:

"When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘the judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’ " This Court "does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." "Rather, the relevant question is, upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

Smith v. Commonwealth , 296 Va. 450, 460, 821 S.E.2d 543 (2018) (emphases in original) (alteration and citations omitted).

Code § 18.2-272(A) states, in relevant part, that "[a]ny person who drives or operates any motor vehicle ... during the time for which he was deprived of the right to do so" for various specified offenses, "after his license has been revoked pursuant to" various specified statutes, or "in violation of the terms of a restricted license ... is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor," while "[a]ny person convicted of three violations of this section committed within a 10-year period is guilty of a Class 6 felony." A conviction under this statute requires a showing "that the defendant had actual notice that he no longer had the privilege to drive in the Commonwealth when the offense occurred," Peters v. Commonwealth , 66 Va. App. 743, 746, 791 S.E.2d 764 (2016), but the statute does not require any particular form of notice and does not mandate any degree of specificity for such notice.

The requisite notice can be inferred from the circumstances and need only be enough to show that the driver knew he was driving without any legal "right to do so," Code § 18.2-272(A). See Peters , 66 Va. App. at 750, 791 S.E.2d 764 ("The evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence prove that the appellant had actual notice that his license had been revoked at the time of the offense."). What is true generally is true here as well.

"[A]ctual notice embraces all degrees and grades of evidence, from the most direct and positive proof to the slightest circumstance from which a jury would be warranted in inferring notice. It is a mere question of fact, and is open to every species of legitimate evidence which may tend to strengthen or impair the conclusion."
Notice is a matter of fact, and is to be proved like all other facts, by direct proof of the fact itself, or by proof of circumstances from which the fact may be justly inferred.

Hofheimer v. Booker , 164 Va. 358, 365-66, 180 S.E. 145 (1935) (citation omitted).

The Court of Appeals correctly found the evidence sufficient to conclude that Yoder had had actual notice on the date of the instant offense that she was driving "during the time for which [s]he was deprived of the right to do so," Code § 18.2-272(A). She had been previously convicted twice (in 2010 and in 2014) of driving on a revoked license and had served 10 days in jail on the second conviction. She was present in the courtroom on both occasions and pleaded guilty each time. If Yoder had possessed a driver's license on either occasion, she would have been required to physically surrender it to the court. See Code § 46.2-398. When the deputy stopped Yoder in this case, he confirmed that Yoder's license remained in revoked status.1 The record contains no indication that when the deputy asked for her identification, Yoder looked in her purse for her license or attempted to explain why she did not have it. Instead, she merely handed the deputy an ID card, which clearly stated that it did not authorize Yoder to drive, see Code § 46.2-345(D) — a tacit admission that she knew she did not have a valid driver's license.2 In order to have been issued such an ID card, Yoder could not have possessed a valid driver's license. See Code § 46.2-345(A)(4). Based upon this evidence, a rational factfinder could reasonably infer that Yoder knew she had no legal right to drive a vehicle and, thus, the facts amply support her conviction for driving after forfeiture of her license, third offense in ten years.3

B.

Yoder argues that our reasoning is inconsistent with Barden v. Commonwealth , 64 Va. App. 700, 771 S.E.2d 699 (2015). In that case, the Court of Appeals addressed Code § 46.2-301(B), which states that an individual whose license has been suspended or revoked may not drive any vehicle "on any highway in the Commonwealth until the period of such suspension or revocation has terminated or the privilege has been reinstated or a restricted license is issued." Reversing a conviction under this statute, Barden held that, upon the expiration of a statutory revocation period, the license does not remain in a revoked status, nor does it revert back to the status of a valid license. See 64 Va. App. at 706-10, 771 S.E.2d 699. Instead, under Barden , until the driver successfully obtains a reinstatement of his license, he remains in an odd legal purgatory — one in which he is neither driving on a revoked license nor driving on a valid license, but rather is merely driving without a valid license. See id. at 708-09, 771 S.E.2d 699. Many courts take a different view, however, and hold that a revocation period is simply a period during which an individual may not apply to have his license reinstated and that a revoked license remains revoked until reinstatement. See State ex rel. Hall v. Schlaegel , 202 W.Va. 93, 502 S.E.2d 190, 194-96 (1998) (collecting authorities).4

We offer no opinion on this subject because, whether or not Barden 's legal reasoning is correct, that case is factually distinguishable on a dispositive point. The defendant in Barden was driving after the expiration of the revocation period and before any effort to reinstate his license. That fact required the Court of Appeals to discern the exact status of the driver during this interregnum. That is not the task we face here. Yoder's statutory revocation period was still in effect at the time that the deputy arrested her. This conclusion is true as a matter of law, see Code § 46.2-391(A) (requiring the Commissioner to revoke Yoder's license for three years for her March 2014 convict...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Flanders v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • February 13, 2020
    ... ... at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." "Rather, the relevant question is, upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Yoder v. Commonwealth , 298 Va. , , 835 S.E.2d 897 (2019) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth , 296 Va. 450, 460, 821 S.E.2d 543 (2018) ). To the extent this case involves issues of statutory interpretation, we review them de novo. Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc. , 273 Va. 96, 104, 639 ... ...
  • Belcher v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • September 27, 2022
    ... ... Perkins , 295 Va. 323, 327, 812 S.E.2d 212 (2018) ). "The question on appeal, is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. " Ingram v. Commonwealth , 74 Va. App. 59, 76, 866 S.E.2d 55 (2021) (quoting Yoder v. Commonwealth , 298 Va. 180, 182, 835 S.E.2d 897 (2019) ). "If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial. " Chavez v ... ...
  • Hogle v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • November 15, 2022
    ... ... Commonwealth , 74 Va. App. 59, 76, 866 S.E.2d 55 (2021) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth , 296 Va. 450, 460, 821 S.E.2d 543 (2018) ). "The question on appeal, is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. " Id. (quoting Yoder v. Commonwealth , 298 Va. 180, 182, 835 S.E.2d 897 (2019) ). "If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial. " Chavez v ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT