Request An Appointment

Lawyer Mark Matney of Matney Law PLLC - Newport News Virginia - DUI and Traffic Court Lawyer

Mark Matney

DUI - DWI Lawyer

Call Attorney Mark Matney at
(757) 703-4556

Charged with Reckless Driving?

Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

Charged with Reckless Driving?

I understand what it means to be charged with the misdemeanor of reckless driving. I was driving toward a tunnel in light traffic that was flowing smoothly when suddenly I realized that the car in front of me had made a complete stop. I applied the brakes, but had a rear end collision with the stopped car. The force of the impact caused my airbags to deploy, bruising my chest. The other driver was also injured. Police and emergency personnel arrived so quickly that I did not speak with the other driver, but I saw him with blood on his face as he went to the ambulance. When I spoke with the trooper I was crying, between the shock of the accident, the appearance of the injured driver and the pain in my own chest. The trooper was kind as he helped me handle the paperwork, arrange for the removal of my vehicle and alert my wife. Ultimately, the trooper gave me a summons for reckless driving with an accident.

Initially, I was concerned about the injury to the other driver and my own chest pain. After the shock subsided and the reassurance that my chest was only bruised, I started to worry about other things. How serious was the injury to the other driver? Did I have enough insurance for a major injury? (I learned that the blood that looked so bad at the accident scene was just a bloody nose and the personal injury claim was resolved before my court date). Would a misdemeanor conviction affect my license to practice law? (Not reckless driving).

Later, I had to face the court date. As I considered the approaching day, I felt both a sense of dread about the possibility of a bad outcome and a longing to have the whole incident behind me. On the court date, as I waited for my case to be called, I worried about how the judge would handle my case. When I was finally summoned to present my case, it felt uncomfortable telling my own story to the judge instead of being there to help someone else. The trooper in my case described the incident in a manner that led the judge to declare, “Mr. Matney, it seems the trooper does not think that I should find you guilty of reckless driving.” I replied, “I concur with the trooper your honor.” Ultimately, the judge dismissed the charge based on the combination of the trooper’s testimony, the driver improvement course and my clear driving record.

I understand the anxiety that comes with receiving a summons for reckless driving. That is why my staff and I come alongside our clients to help make the process as simple as possible. We assist our clients by rescheduling court dates, gathering documents and videos necessary for understanding and defending the charges, keeping them informed and ensuring that they know what to expect on their court dates. 

DUI Attorney Mark Matney - Attorney Mark Matney - Holcomb Law, PC - Newport News - Williamsburg

We Welcome Your Comments

Monday Morning Money Minute

Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

Monday Morning Money Minute

Today we move from Baby Step 1, setting up an emergency fund, to Baby Step 2: Pay off all non-mortgage debt as fast as possible. One of the fastest ways to do this is to pay off the smallest debt and then add the money you were paying to the next smallest debt. This is often referred to as the debt snowball. If you continue this process, then you will have more and more money going to the successive debts. I also use software that factors in interest rates and minimum payments and would be glad to share that with you. Dave Ramsey teaches that getting out of debt should be done with gazelle intensity. “Free yourself, like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, like a bird from the snare of the fowler” (Proverbs 4:6).

Request An Appointment

Lawyer Mark Matney of Matney Law PLLC - Newport News Virginia - DUI and Traffic Court Lawyer

Mark Matney

DUI - DWI Lawyer

Call Attorney Mark Matney at
(757) 703-4556

Monday Morning Money Minute

Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

Monday Morning Money Minute

Budget is not a 4 letter word! Maybe 10% of us are so disciplined that we don’t need a budget and perhaps 10% have enough income to spend what they want. Everyone else needs a budget. It doesn’t seem like it at first, but a budget frees you to spend money. What?! Once you know your income and expenses, you can allocate money for recreation without worrying. In a nutshell, the steps for a budget are: Determine your total monthly income and expenses, subtract your expenses from your income, assign your income dollars to your expenses, and keep track. You may find that you need to increase your income or cut your expenses to achieve a balanced budget. A book like Your Money or Your Life can help you focus your money on what is really important to you.

Request An Appointment

Lawyer Mark Matney of Matney Law PLLC - Newport News Virginia - DUI and Traffic Court Lawyer

Mark Matney

DUI - DWI Lawyer

Call Attorney Mark Matney at
(757) 703-4556

Successfully Challenging Radar Certificates

Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

Successfully Challenging Radar Certificates

In the past week, I have had two cases where the police officer was unable to show accuracy of his radar. So they were both dismissed, right? Wrong. Sometimes, even when the officer cannot prove accuracy of the equipment, the case is not dismissed.


In the first case, my client was charged with reckless driving by speed, 81/55 (26 mph over the limit). In that case the officer seemed upset when I asked him for his calibration record and then provided a certificate for a calibration that was performed after my client was stopped. To demonstrate accuracy at the time of the stop, the certificate must be dated during the six-month period before the stop. When I told the judge that I challenged the calibration certificate and explained the reason, the judge granted my motion to dismiss.


For the second case, with a different judge, my client’s summons was for reckless driving by speed, 97/65 (32 mph over the limit). This case involved a cordial trooper who shared all of his documents and discussed them with me. We found that he had certificates that were too recent and a certificate that was too old, but he did not have one for the six-month period before the date he stopped my client. The judge agreed with my challenge to the certificate, but said that he would not dismiss the case since the speed was so high. I argued that without the certificate the trooper could only establish speeding and not reckless driving by speed since he could not show that my client was driving more than 20 mph over the limit or over 85 mph (the two grounds for reckless by speed). The judge told me I could appeal and ruled reckless driving. The sentence was more lenient and did not include the jail time he was giving to drivers with similar speeds, but it was not the result I wanted after successfully challenging the radar.


Although I believe that the second judge was incorrect in finding my client guilty of reckless driving, he was right about her right to appeal. She now has a second opportunity to avoid the criminal misdemeanor.

DUI Attorney Mark Matney - Attorney Mark Matney - Holcomb Law, PC - Newport News - Williamsburg

We Welcome Your Comments

Monday Morning Money Minute

Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

Monday Morning Money Minute

Recently I helped lead Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University.  We discussed how to build a strong financial house during a series of nine meetings.  I will share some of what I learned each Monday for the next several weeks. The foundation is setting up an emergency fund.  Many people are realizing how essential this is as they face cutbacks and layoffs. Dave Ramsey recommends starting with $1,000. I prefer $1,500 because it seems like often things happen in sets of three and that they cost $500 each.  Car repair cost?  $500.  Pet to the vet?  $500.  Plumbing issue?  $500.  The important thing is to start somewhere, $250, $500, $1000.  The idea is to have some money on hand so that you can avoid any additional debt.  If you have to use your emergency money, then don’t be upset.  Be thankful that you had the money available and replace it as soon as you can.

Attorney Mark Matney - Holcomb Law, PC - Member of DUI Defense Lawyers Association

I Welcome Your Comments

DUI Attorney Mark Matney - Matney Law PLLC - Newport News - Williamsburg

Mark Matney

DUI & Traffic Court Lawyer

Can I be Found Guilty of DUI Below 0.08 BAC

Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

Can I be found guilty of DUI below 0.08 BAC? Yes. Although I have not lost a trial for a BAC below 0.08, I watched a trial in which someone was found guilty of DUI at 0.06 BAC and I have had to go to trial for clients with a BAC as low as 0.05.

0.08 is the threshold for presuming that the driver is under the influence of alcohol.  This presumption helps the prosecutor because it places the burden on the driver to prove that he was not under the influence.  For the driver to get a presumption that he was not under the influence of alcohol, the BAC must be 0.05 or below.  In that circumstance, the prosecutor has the burden of proving that factors other than the BAC prove the driver was under the influence.  

So what about 0.06 to 0.07 BAC?  For the middle BACs, neither side is entitled to a presumption.  This means that the driver tries to prove that his driving and testing do not prove he was under the influence while the prosecutor seeks to show why the same evidence demonstrates that he was under the influence.

Let’s look at a recent 0.05 BAC defense that resulted in Not Guilty of DUI.

The police approached my client because he stopped in a left turn lane instead of pulling onto the shoulder when he needed to address something going on in his car.  He had two passengers with him.  The officer noted an odor of an alcoholic beverage, but did not note any other problems with his personal contact with the driver.  The officer also noted few issues with the field testing.  So why was the driver arrested?  He admitted to drinking and took the Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) with a result of 0.075 BAC.  Alcohol in his system was then confirmed by the formal breath test on the Intoxilyzer EC/IR II with a BAC of 0.05.  The prosecutor chose to pursue a DUI trial instead of negotiating a lesser charge.

To defend against the DUI, I broke the case up into four sections.  First, I asked the officer questions to emphasize that he did not observe the vehicle in motion.  Secondly, I had the officer review all of the good points of his personal contact notes indicating that the driver did not have any problems with his speech, standing, walking, or complying with instructions.  Furthermore, a passenger who had not consumed any alcohol felt safe riding with the driver.  Thirdly, I questioned the officer about the field sobriety tests in a way that accentuated what my client did right.  For example, the officer noted that the driver spoke slowly and paused while performing the Alphabet Test.  However, I had the officer agree that the driver started at the correct letter, stopped at the correct letter, and recited the required letters accurately.  Another example is that for the Walk and Turn Test the officer said that the driver stepped off-line during the test.  I asked the officer to explain that the test involves 18 steps with 8 possible clues and to clarify that my client only demonstrated one clue on one step.

At the conclusion of the case, I presented to the judge that the prosecutor’s case did not overcome the presumption that my client was not under the influence of alcohol. I focused on the 0.05 BAC, the lack of bad driving, the positive aspects of the personal contact, and the strength of the driver’s performance on the field sobriety tests.  The judge agreed that the prosecutor’s evidence was not sufficient and ruled that my client was Not Guilty of DUI, 0.05 BAC.

Attorney Mark Matney - Holcomb Law, PC - Traffic Court Attorney - Newport News Virginia

Attorney Mark Matney - Holcomb Law, PC - Traffic Court Attorney - Newport News Virginia

Not Guilty of DUI for Two Clients Who Refused Tests

Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

Two recent clients had their DUI charges dismissed in cases where they did not participate in testing.  One of these was achieved through a trial and the other was the result of a conversation with the prosecutor.

In the first case, my client was stopped for a minor traffic violation.  The officer noted slurred speech so he required the driver to exit the vehicle for a DUI investigation.  The driver denied consuming alcohol and declined all field sobriety tests, the handheld preliminary breath test and the formal breath test at the police station.  Without a BAC, there was no presumption against my client.  However, the driver’s appearance was a challenge.  The police video confirmed the officer’s notes describing the driver’s speech as slurred and his ability to stand and walk as swaying.  Because of this, the prosecutor insisted on a trial instead of agreeing to an amendment to a lesser charge.  In fact, the prosecutor played a portion of the video for the judge to show him the driver’s slow speech and swaying.

To deal with the officer’s observations, I had my client sworn in to testify.  It is unusual to call a client to testify, but we needed him to tell his story.  The goal was to show the judge that fatigue and other factors were affecting him instead of alcohol.  We walked through his day, describing in detail how he had worked his regular job, donated plasma, visited his mother, and worked a side job with his friend.  He described how he could not drink at work and that neither his mother nor his friend tolerated alcohol.  He also described not being able to consume alcohol before donating plasma and that he felt dizzy after the donation.

Ultimately, my closing argument emphasized the lack of evidence against my client.  There was no presumption against him, there were no field tests or BAC tests, and there was a detailed description of his day that provided an explanation other than alcohol for his appearance.  The clincher, however, was that the officer testified that he did not detect an odor of an alcoholic beverage.  The judge indicated that it was a close case due to the driving behavior, swaying and slurred speech, but he was not comfortable finding my client guilty in the absence of any other evidence against him.  The final result?  Not guilty of DUI.

The second case was dismissed after the prosecutor and I discussed the lack of evidence.  In this situation, the police officer was dispatched to an accident scene so he did not observe the driving behavior.  He acknowledged that it had been raining.  The officer’s report noted the odor of an alcoholic beverage, bloodshot eyes, slightly slurred speech and swaying while standing.  However, the driver denied drinking alcohol and declined field tests.  Instead, she requested transportation to the hospital due to the accident.  At the hospital, the driver was treated and released before the officer arrived to request a blood test.

On the morning of court, I was ready for a trial but hoping that the prosecutor would offer to amend the charge.  The prosecutor and I reviewed the case and the lack of evidence:  no indication that the driver’s conduct caused the accident, no field tests and no BAC.  It was also significant that my client’s appearance and behavior could have been affected by being in an accident and that the police video did not support the officer’s note that the driver was swaying.  After we reviewed the case, the prosecutor conceded that the evidence against my client involved little more than the mere odor of alcohol.  The DUI was dismissed by nolle pros, which is a prosecutorial decision not to pursue the charge.

 

Request An Appointment

Lawyer Mark Matney of Matney Law PLLC - Newport News Virginia - DUI and Traffic Court Lawyer

Mark Matney

DUI - DWI Lawyer

Call Attorney Mark Matney at
(757) 703-4556

Attorney Mark Matney - Holcomb Law, PC - Member of DUI Defense Lawyers Association

I Welcome Your Comments

DUI Attorney Mark Matney - Matney Law PLLC - Newport News - Williamsburg

Mark Matney

DUI & Traffic Court Lawyer

The Complete Guide to Expungement

Do I Need To File Expungement?
Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

1. If my case was dismissed, why do I need to file for expungement?
The dismissal of a criminal charge leaves a blemish on the defendant’s criminal record. Dismissal does not in itself remove the charge. Anyone conducting a background check would see the charge and any arrest and the notation that the charge was dismissed. Depending on the charge, the mere fact of being charged, regardless of the outcome, may be enough to scare off a potential or current employer. For example, I represented an EMT who had outstanding credentials, even training other EMTs. However, every time he applied for a permanent position he was denied. Potential employers saw dismissed charges related to an ex-girlfriend and chose the candidates without the blemished records.

2. Grounds for Filing the Petition.
a. Terms. The result of the charge must be acquitted, nolle prosequi, or otherwise dismissed.
1) Acquittal is a dismissal based on innocence or lack of proof. This includes a not guilty result.
2) Nolle prosequi is a dismissal by the prosecutor. In this situation, the prosecutor chose not to proceed on the charge. Sometimes a nolle prosequi is triggered by a lack of evidence or difficulty getting a witness to court. At other times, a nolle prosequi may be result of an agreement for one charge to proceed while another charge is dismissed.
3) Otherwise dismissed. A petition based on an “otherwise dismissed” result is the most likely to be litigated.

b. Not eligible for expungement.
1) Amendment to a lesser included offense. For example, if the charge is amended from the felony of Grand Larceny to misdemeanor of Petit Larceny, then the charge would not qualify for expungement. This is so because the elements of each offense are the same.
The Virginia Supreme Court described this situation by stating, “the misdemeanors of which Necaise was convicted were lesser included offenses of the felonies with which he was charged, all of the elements of the offenses of which he was convicted were subsumed within the felony charges and they form[ed] the sole bases for the convictions.” Id. at 669, 708 S.E.2d at 866. Therefore, we held that “Necaise, having been found guilty of offenses charged within the warrants upon which he was arrested, was not an ‘innocent citizen’ entitled to the benefit of the expungement statutes.” Id. at 670, 708 S.E.2d at 866. Dressner v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 1, 6, 736 S.E.2d 735, 737 (2013), explaining its decision in Necaise v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 666 [708 S.E.2d 864] (2011).
2) Dismissal after completion of a first offender program. First offender programs result in dismissals and permit people to avoid convictions, but are not eligible for expungement.
3) Evidence sufficient for a finding of guilt. If the judge indicates that there was enough evidence for the person to be found guilty but dismisses the case, then the defendant receives the benefit of not being found guilty but not the benefit of expungement.

c. Eligible for expungement.
1) Amendment of the charge to a separate offense that is not a lesser-included offense of the original charge.

For example, a marijuana possession charge being amended to the unrelated charge of reckless driving.
“The possession of marijuana charge in the instant case, however, was amended to the completely separate and unrelated charge of reckless driving in violation of Code § 46.2–852. Reckless driving is not a lesser-included offense of possession of marijuana. Compare Code § 46.2–852, with Code § 18.2–250.1. In other words, ‘the elements of the offense [ ] of which [Dressner] was convicted’ were not ‘subsumed within the [possession of marijuana charge]’ and did not ‘form the sole bas[i]s for the conviction[ ].’ Necaise, 281 Va. at 669, 708 S.E.2d at 866. Thus, the possession of marijuana charge was necessarily ‘otherwise dismissed’ within the intendment of Code § 19.2–392.2(A)(2).” Dressner v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 1, 6, 736 S.E.2d 735, 737 (2013).

2) Plea of not guilty or no plea with no finding of sufficiency of the evidence. The Virginia Supreme Court has determined that a petitioner is eligible for expungement where a charge is dismissed without a guilty or no contest plea and without a finding of sufficiency of the evidence.

For example, where the petitioners did not enter pleas and performed certain requirements set by the judge before dismissals were entered, the Virginia Supreme Court “liken[ed] the dismissals ... to a nolle prosequi or accord and satisfaction; each dismissal took place without a determination of guilt, without a finding of evidence sufficient to establish guilt, and without penalties or [285 Va. 7] conditions imposed by judicial authority.” The petitioners occupied the status of innocent and were persons whose charges had been ‘otherwise dismissed’ under the expungement statute. Dressner v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 1, 6-7, 736 S.E.2d 735, 737 (2013) explaining the decision in Brown v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 92, 677 S.E.2d 220 (2009).

d. Absolute Pardon and Wrong Person Convicted. There are also provisions for expungement based on an absolute pardon from the governor for a crime that the petitioner did not commit [19.2-392.2(G)] and for a dismissal in which the court found person arrested or charged was not the person named in the charging document [19.2-392.2(H)].

3. Manifest Injustice Requirement. To be successful, the petitioner must also show “that the continued existence and possible dissemination of information relating to the arrest of the petitioner caused or may cause circumstances which constitute a manifest injustice to the petitioner.”

4. Procedure. Strict compliance with the procedures is required. Any imperfection in the petition or the process can result in dismissal of the petition.
a. File the petition in the Circuit Court of the city or county where the charge was brought and dismissed. The petition must include specified information about the charge: date of arrest, name of arresting agency, the charge to be expunged, date of the final disposition, petitioner’s date of birth, petitioner’s full name at the time of the arrest. A copy of the charging document must be filed with the petition or the petition must explain why a copy is not reasonably available. [19.2—392.2(C)].
b. Serve a copy of the Petition on the Commonwealth’s Attorney for the jurisdiction where the petition is filed. [19.2-392(D)].
c. After filing the petition, the petitioner must take a copy of the petition to a law-enforcement agency and have that agency take fingerprints. The agency must submit the fingerprints and the copy of the petition to the Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE). The CCRE must then provide the Circuit Court with the petitioner’s criminal history, copies of the source documents that resulted in the CCRE entry, and the petitioner’s fingerprints. The fingerprints are provided to the petitioner after a hearing. The court may also destroy the fingerprints if an order is entered without a hearing. [19.2-392(E)].
d. If the expungement petition is granted, then the court will refund the filing fee to the petitioner. However, the cost of serving the petition on the Commonwealth’s Attorney is not refunded.

5. Is a hearing required? The court may enter the expungement order without a hearing if the Commonwealth’s Attorney provides written notice that he or she does not object to the petition. For a felony, the Commonwealth’s Attorney must also agree that “the continued existence and possible dissemination” of the charge “causes or may cause …a manifest injustice to the petitioner.” [19.2-392.2(F)].

6. Result. Upon entry of the expungement order, the court will promptly remove the record from the court’s website. The Virginia Department of State Police will issue a letter a few months after the entry of the expungement order that confirms removal of the petitioner’s charge from their records.

 

I Welcome Your Comments

DUI Attorney Mark Matney - Matney Law PLLC - Newport News - Williamsburg

Mark Matney

DUI & Traffic Court Lawyer

Reckless Driving, 37 MPH Over The Limit, Amended to Speeding

Reckless Driving Amended to Speeding
Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

If you were charged with Reckless Driving by Speed at 72 mph in a 35 mph zone, would you prefer an amendment to Speeding or a conviction with a weekend of jail?  Today in court I represented the first driver.  When you go to court, it is like a job interview in the sense that you only get one chance to make a first impression.

My client, charged with reckless driving, 72 in 35, helped me prepare for court by completing the driver improvement course and arranging for the necessary witness.  At court, I spoke with the law enforcement officer and reviewed the situation with him.  When we presented our case, I was able to inform the court that my client stopped immediately for the officer and was cooperative throughout the encounter.  Additionally, I pointed out that the officer did not object to the amendment of the charge.  I then helped my client explain his side and what he learned from being charged and completing a driver improvement course.  Finally, we presented my client’s clear driving history and the testimony of a witness who spoke on his behalf.

The judge amended the charge from the criminal misdemeanor of Reckless Driving to the traffic infraction of Speeding.  He noted that he considered the officer’s input, the testimony of the character witness, and my client’s driving history, driver improvement course and acknowledgement of responsibility.

On the other hand, I observed a driver who was charged with Reckless Driving by Speed at 70 mph in a 35 mph zone.  That driver was found guilty and sentenced to two days of jail.  Despite the lower speed he received a more severe result.  What was the difference?  The other driver did not prepare effectively for his day in court.  He did not present that the officer was willing for the charge to be amended, nor did he present a driver improvement course or any other mitigating factors.

Sometimes the judges decide that the speed is too high and they do not amend despite all of our preparations.  However, by planning in advance we can obtain the best result based on the facts and circumstances.

 

I Welcome Your Comments

DUI Attorney Mark Matney - Matney Law PLLC - Newport News - Williamsburg

Mark Matney

DUI & Traffic Court Lawyer

Two ASAP Non-Compliance Cases Dismissed This Week

Two ASAP Non-Compliance Cases
Posted by Mark Matney of Holcomb Law, PC Newport News, VA
www.matneylawpllc.com
__________________________________

This week judges in two different cities dismissed ASAP show cause violations against my clients.  Both cases involved someone who triggered an ignition interlock violation soon after the machine was installed.  They completed six months with no new interlock problems before their court dates and remained in full compliance with respect to classes and payments.  It is important when dealing with an ASAP violation of any type to be straightforward with the ASAP case manager, to avoid any new issues, and to maintain strict compliance after the incident.