Defendant is not entitled to reversal of his bench trial conviction for third offense driving under the influence of alcohol on the basis of the inadmissibility of his second offense conviction, the Court of Appeals says; defendant failed to assign error to the admissibility of his second conviction and his brief fails to address the sufficiency of evidence, and both arguments are procedurally defaulted under Rule 5A:20(e).
Defendant was stopped for a license plate violation charged with third offense driving under the influence of alcohol after walking away from the officer and ignoring his commands. Trial evidence included a first DUI conviction and a second judgment order to which defendant objected. This order found defendant “guilty as charged,” imposed a $2,500 civil penalty, imposed probation and ordered participation in the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program. The trial court admitted this conviction and convicted defendant of third offense DUI within 10 years.
On appeal, defendant admitted at oral argument that his assignment of error does not address the admissibility of the second conviction, but rather, the sufficiency of evidence. This admissibility issue is waived under Rule 5A:20(e). Defendant’s brief fails to argue or cite legal authority for his assigned sufficiency of evidence issue, this failure is significant and this issue also procedurally defaulted under Rule 20(e). Affirmed.
Pindeda v. Commonwealth (Frank) No. 1061-11-4, May 15, 2012; Prince William Cir. Ct. (Farris) Peter Francescon for appellant; Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, AAG. VLW 012-7-142(UP), 4 pp.