THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, June 3, 1994 TAG: 9406031059
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: D1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: 940603 LENGTH: Medium
The Court of Appeals has ruled that driving records used in every habitual-offender case in Virginia are invalid because they are incomplete.
{REST} The ruling had an almost immediate effect: On Thursday, just two days after the ruling was publicized, a habitual-offender case against a three-time drunken driver in Virginia Beach was dismissed. In Portsmouth on Thursday, prosecutors withdrew - at least temporarily - about 25 cases because of the ruling.
Ultimately, the ruling may affect thousands of drivers statewide as habitual-offender cases pile up on prosecutors' desks.
Last year, there were 18,293 habitual-offender cases in Virginia. From those, 4,935 drivers were declared habitual offenders and lost their licenses for up to 10 years.
Prosecutors disagree on whether any bad drivers could get back behind the wheel while their cases are delayed.
Norfolk prosecutor Elizabeth Hovell said that can't happen. Any driver certified as a habitual offender by the Department of Motor Vehicles cannot get a new driver's license, even a restricted one, while his case is pending.
But Virginia Beach Commonwealth's Attorney Robert Humphreys isn't sure. ``The impact really is on the public safety,'' he said. ``You'll have all these people driving. . . . They're clearly a threat as long as they're still out there driving.''
Until DMV creates new driving records to satisfy the court, ``we won't be able to get anyone declared a habitual offender,'' Chesapeake Commonwealth's Attorney David Williams said.
Most local lawyers learned of the ruling Tuesday, when it was announced in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, a statewide legal newspaper. It was top-of-the-front-page news.
Word spread quickly. In the Virginia Beach courthouse Thursday, prosecutors passed around a copy of the legal newspaper and worried about how the ruling would affect four habitual-offender cases set for that day.
They learned quickly.
In the very first case - one involving a man with three drunk-driving convictions, including two last year - defense lawyer Michael A. Robusto cited the Court of Appeals ruling and challenged the prosecution's case.
Judge Thomas S. Shadrick recessed for 20 minutes to read the ruling, then returned glumly.
``I don't necessarily agree with the ruling,'' Shadrick said, ``but I'm bound to follow it.'' He dismissed the case, then lectured the defendant, 26-year-old Christopher P. McDaniel.
``It bothers me tremendously knowing you've been convicted of drunk driving three times,'' Shadrick said. ``At your age, that's pretty sad. So I can only hope you've learned your lesson and you won't drive and drink anymore.''
In the Portsmouth courthouse Thursday, there was a similar scene. Prosecutors there had to withdraw about 25 habitual-offender cases and can't bring any new ones until the Court of Appeals' objections are satisfied.
``We're kind of at a standstill,'' Portsmouth prosecutor Mary Thomas said.
Meanwhile, the cases keep coming. Norfolk gets nearly 1,000 a year, Virginia Beach about 700 and Portsmouth about 600. Figures for Chesapeake and Suffolk were not available.
The problem is with summaries of driver convictions. To be declared a habitual offender, a driver must have three major convictions or 12 minor convictions in the past 10 years. DMV supplies the summaries of convictions to prosecutors. The Court of Appeals ruled that these summaries are inadequate because they do not include such details as offense dates or the defendant's plea for each conviction, as required.
That means DMV must redo its driving records for prosecutors, and that will take time. Humphreys guessed it might take six months to a year. Hovell guessed more than a year.
DMV spokeswoman Jeanne Chenault said, ``We are just beginning to review that (court ruling) to determine what we need to change, if anything, in our process.'' She did not know how long it will take.
The ruling by a three-judge panel could be overturned by the full Court of Appeals or the Virginia Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, prosecutors ``will just have to nolle pros (withdraw) all these cases until they get the proper information,'' said lawyer Richard G. Brydges, who had a habitual-offender case Thursday in Virginia Beach. ``They'll just have to do them better in the future. It'll put them in a turmoil, that's for sure.''
by CNB