 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Penton v. City of Norfolk3/23/1993
5.1-901, by contrast, purports to limit the punishment imposed for violation of any local ordinance. Under the rule of statutory construction set out above, we conclude that the specific terms of Code § 15.1-132 apply to give localities the authority to punish driving while under the influence above and beyond the limits set by Code § 15.1-901.
Had the City of Norfolk taken no action to increase the penalties provided in its code for DUI offenses, convictions rendered under the local ordinance would have been subject to attack as violative of Code § 15.1-132. We reached just such a Conclusion in Commonwealth v. Knott, 11 Va. App. 44, 46-47, 396 S.E.2d 148, 149-50 (1990), in which the local ordinance at issue omitted a penalty enhancement provision present in the corresponding state statute.
For the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Norfolk City Code § 1-11, as amended by the Norfolk City Council on July 17, 1990, and insofar as it applied to driving while under the influence offenses, was a valid exercise of municipal power under Code § 15.1-132, both at the time of its enactment and the time of appellants' arrests and convictions.
Accordingly, the convictions of the appellants are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Disposition
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|