KENNETH CHARLES CLEVELAND v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA April 30, 2002, Decided The trial judge convicted Kenneth Charles Cleveland of a felony offense, under Code 46.2-357(B)(2), of driving while having the status of an habitual offender. Cleveland contends the trial judge rendered impermissible, inconsistent verdicts by convicting him of a felony after acquitting him of violating Code 18.2-266, which is an element of the felony offense. A grand jury indicted Cleveland on four offenses of driving a vehicle while having the status of a habitual offender and while violating Code 18.2-266, driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Code 18.2-266(i), reckless driving in violation of Code 46.2-852, and attempting to elude a police officer in violation of Code 46.2-817. At trial, a deputy sheriff testified against the defendant. The judge indicated that he could not convict Cleveland of both driving under the influence and reckless driving and so the judge, convicted Cleveland "of habitual offender, reckless driving, and attempting to elude" a police officer. Defendant appealed only on the felony conviction on driving while being a habitual offender. Issue: Whether the trial judge had rendered impermissible, inconsistent verdicts by convicting the defendant felony? Discussion: This court held that the trial judge had found that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of either reckless driving or driving under the influence. Under Virginia law he could not convict Cleveland of both. Significantly, the defendant does not dispute that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt his blood alcohol content was .09 by weight by volume and that the judge was giving the defendant a break by dismissing the DUI. Accordingly, this court held that the record discloses no unfairness or violation of principles consistent with the proper administration of justice and, thus, presents no reversible error. This court further held that the trial judge gave a valid explanation for rendering the felony conviction even though he acquitted the defendant of the charge of driving under the influence. Conclusion: This court hence affirmed the judgment convicting the defendant of driving while having the status of a habitual offender. Disclaimer: These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
