Virginia,Stafford,County,Drivi law Virginia Stafford County Driving Revoked License Lawyers Att
When you work with an attorney, you will have no problem reducing the risks associated with getting your case in front of a judge and jury, or other formal court, when you need to. However, every case is different. It is important to work wi Bankruptcy is a situation, wherein an individual is termed as unable to discharge all the debts. When a person or a company is not able to pay off its creditors, it has an obligation to file a bankruptcy suit. In fact, a bankruptcy suit is a
WASEEM ALI v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIACOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIANovember 10, 2009, DecidedFacts:WaseemAli ("Ali") appeals his convictions for grand larceny from theperson, in violation of Code § 18.2-95, robbery, in violation of Code §18.2-58, reckless driving, in violation of Code § 46.2-852, and driving on arevoked license, third or subsequent offense, in violation of Code § 46.2-301.On appeal, Ali contends for the first time that he could not lawfully beconvicted of both robbery and grand larceny from the person because they arosefrom a single act. Ali further contends that the trial court erred in allowingthe prosecutor to ask him certain questions during cross-examination in thesentencing phase of the trial, because the questions did not constitute properimpeachment or rebuttal, that the prosecutor referred to convictions that werenot listed on the notice required by Code § 19.2-295.1, and that the prosecutorreferred to convictions that were not evidenced by a certified court order, asrequired by Code § 19.2-295.1. Issues:Whetherthe defendant could be convicted of both robbery and grand larceny from theperson because they arose from a single act?Whetherthe trail court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendantabout his prior conviction?Discussion:Thiscourt declined to invoke the "ends of justice" exception to Va. Sup.Ct. R. 5A:18 to consider defendant's argument because defendant could notdemonstrate that the conduct for which he was convicted was not a criminaloffense. Defendant's conduct arguably constituted two criminal offenses.Defendant could not affirmatively prove that an element of the offense did notoccur because it was unclear from the record whether the evidence adduced attrial established two distinct criminal acts or one. Thus, this court declinesto invoke the "ends of justice" exception to Rule 5A:18 to considerAli's argument.Thiscourt held that the trial court did not err in permitting the prosecutor tocross-examine defendant about his prior conviction for possession of cocaine.Because defendant introduced evidence concerning his history and background,the prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine him about specific acts in orderto rebut his testimony pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-295.1. Conclusion:This court hence affirmed the judgmentwhich convicted the defendant of grand larceny from the person in violation ofVa. Code Ann. § 18.2-95, robbery in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-58,reckless driving in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852, and driving on arevoked license, third or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. §46.2-301.Disclaimer:Thesesummaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firms unofficial views of the Justicesopinions. The original opinions shouldbe consulted for their authoritative content
Virginia,Stafford,County,Drivi