<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Criminal Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digests/criminal-law-opinion-digests/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 21:11:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Driver’s License Revoked for Federal DUI&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/drivers-license-revoked-for-federal-dui/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/drivers-license-revoked-for-federal-dui/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Randy I. Bellows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Traffic Offenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Fairfax Circuit Court says the federal DUI statute to which defendant pled guilty substantially parallels Virginia’s DUI statute, Va. Code § 18.2-266, and the court rejects the driver’s petition asserting it was error for Virginia to revoke his Virginia driver’s license for the federal conviction. The court finds the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles did [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/drivers-license-revoked-for-federal-dui/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defendant Expected Three to Five, Got 19 Years&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/defendant-expected-three-to-five-got-19-years/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/defendant-expected-three-to-five-got-19-years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A defendant’s claim that his lawyer told him he would get three to five years for pleading guilty to robbery, but who was sentenced to 19 years, was corroborated by his brother, mother, another defendant who overheard defendant’s bullpen conversation with his lawyer on the day defendant pled and a recorded phone conversation with his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/defendant-expected-three-to-five-got-19-years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consent to Search After Traffic Stop&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/consent-to-search-after-traffic-stop/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/consent-to-search-after-traffic-stop/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:59:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Glen A. Huff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant cannot overturn his bench trial conviction and one-year suspended sentence for narcotics possession by challenging the consensual nature of the police search of his vehicle, the Court of Appeals says; defendant freely consented to the search after the valid stop for a traffic infraction had ended. One night in August, a deputy sheriff stopped [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/consent-to-search-after-traffic-stop/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bodily Injury Not ‘Crime of Violence’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/bodily-injury-not-crime-of-violence/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/bodily-injury-not-crime-of-violence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge T.S. Ellis III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant’s two prior convictions for unlawful bodily injury under Va. Code § 18.2-51 do not constitute predicate “crimes of violence” under federal sentencing guidelines, and the Alexandria U.S. District Court says defendant is not eligible for a 12-level enhancement of his offense level on his sentence for illegal re-entry into the U.S. following removal. Given [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/bodily-injury-not-crime-of-violence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hearing Ordered on Plea Deal Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/hearing-ordered-on-plea-deal-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/hearing-ordered-on-plea-deal-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Rebecca Beach Smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Based on petitioner’s assertion that an injury delayed his response, the Norfolk U.S. District Court orders an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging his lawyer did not communicate a plea offer from the federal prosecutor. The lawyer who defended the case earlier stated in an affidavit that he and petitioner [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/hearing-ordered-on-plea-deal-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Suppression Order Reversed in Meth-Lab Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/suppression-order-reversed-in-meth-lab-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/suppression-order-reversed-in-meth-lab-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 18:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search & Seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A deputy who accompanied a social worker to a home to investigate the possible presence of children in a methamphetamine-manufacturing site had probable cause and exigent circumstances to enter the home, after observing items used to manufacture the drug in a burn pile outside the home and hearing movement inside when the deputy knocked at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/suppression-order-reversed-in-meth-lab-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prior Md. Crime Is ‘Violent Felony’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/prior-md-crime-is-violent-felony/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/prior-md-crime-is-violent-felony/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 18:18:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jean Harrison Clements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant’s prior conviction under a Maryland statute for assault with intent to maim qualifies as a predicate violent offense under Va. Code § 18.2-308.2, and the Court of Appeals affirms defendant’s conviction of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a violent felony. Under Code § 19.2-297.1(B), the commonwealth could rely on defendant’s Maryland [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/prior-md-crime-is-violent-felony/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Preliminary Breath Test Inadmissible, Not Harmless&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/preliminary-breath-test-inadmissible-not-harmless/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/preliminary-breath-test-inadmissible-not-harmless/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 12:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Stephen R. McCullough]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Traffic Offenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At defendant’s trial for reckless driving, the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the preliminary breath test with a BAC of 0.04 when no evidence was presented concerning whether such a result signified that the driver was intoxicated and driving recklessly, and the Court of Appeals reverses defendant’s conviction. We further hold that, in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/preliminary-breath-test-inadmissible-not-harmless/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Analogue Act Upheld for ‘Bath Salts’ Sale&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/analogue-act-upheld-for-bath-salts-sale/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/analogue-act-upheld-for-bath-salts-sale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:48:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Glen E. Conrad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A defendant cannot win judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict finding him guilty of conspiracy and distribution of “bath salts” – controlled substance analogues for human consumption – in violation of the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986; the Charlottesville U.S. District Court rejects defendant’s challenges to 1) the constitutionality of the Analogue [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/analogue-act-upheld-for-bath-salts-sale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Complaint Sufficient to Seize Cash&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/complaint-sufficient-to-seize-cash/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/complaint-sufficient-to-seize-cash/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James C. Cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this civil forfeiture action involving $17,550 seized by Fairfax County police officers from claimant’s vehicle during a traffic stop, the Alexandria U.S. District Court denies claimant’s motion to dismiss the action because the government’s complaint supports the initial seizure of the cash. The court finds the government has stated facts sufficient to support a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/complaint-sufficient-to-seize-cash/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
