DUI Alexandria City 2 times In just Five Year eighteen.2-266 eighteen.2-270 Arlington County Third Offense Prior Conviction



277 Va. 393

Mwangi appealed his conviction to the Courtroom of Appeals of Virginia.  The Courtroom of Appeals affirmed Mwangi’s conviction.  At demo, the Commonwealth sought to concurrently introduce 3 displays as evidence of Mwangi’s prior DUI convictions, and the demo court admitted the displays about Mwangi’s objections.  One of those people displays, Show 1, is a transcript from the Office of Motor Cars (DMV) displaying that Mwangi experienced been convicted of DUI in the Typical District Courtroom of the County of Arlington on April 22, 2005, as properly as a purported DUI conviction in the City of Alexandria.  Another of those people displays, Show 3, is a summons that purports to demonstrate that Mwangi experienced been convicted of DUI in the Alexandria Typical District Courtroom.  The summons indicates that the alleged offense transpired on January 21, 2005, and that Mwangi appeared in the typical district court, represented by counsel, on July 15, 2005.  The summons also indicates that Mwangi entered a guilty plea, was experimented with and found guilty as billed, and was fined and sentenced to a jail time period.  The summons, nonetheless, is not signed by a judge.  Mwangi contends that the demo court erred in convicting him of DUI, 3rd offense, mainly because Show 3, the purported DUI conviction order, is not endorsed by a judge and, hence, is no order at all.

The dispositive challenge in this attractiveness is whether or not the Courtroom of Appeals erred in affirming a conviction for driving underneath the impact, 3rd offense, wherever the Commonwealth’s proof of recidivism relies on a purported order from a typical district court which was in no way endorsed by a judge.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has the load of proving all elements of a crime, which include prior convictions, outside of a sensible question.  In a court-not-of-report, a judge’s signature proves the rendition of a judgment.  The purported disposition on the back again of a warrant is not an order mainly because it is not signed by the judge.  While the DMV transcript was admissible in evidence to verify prior convictions, the Commonwealth’s Show 3 rebutted the evidence as to the Alexandria conviction.  The Commonwealth, as a result, failed to verify that Mwangi experienced been twice ahead of convicted of DUI.  It follows, then, that the Courtroom of Appeals erred in affirming Mwangi’s conviction.

The Supreme Courtroom reversed the judgment of the Courtroom of Appeals, vacated the demo court’s judgment, and remanded the situation to the Courtroom of Appeals with route that the Courtroom of Appeals remand the situation to the demo court for a new demo on the lesser-provided misdemeanor charge if the Commonwealth be so encouraged.


These summaries are offered by the SRIS Regulation Group.  They symbolize the firm’s unofficial sights of the Justices’ opinions.  The first opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.