Home / Fulltext Opinions / Virginia Court of Appeals / WALKER v. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD

WALKER v. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD



NOTICE: The opinions posted here are
subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or
other formal error, please notify the Virginia Court of Appeals.


WALKER

v.

COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD


OCTOBER 10, 2000

Record No. 2653-99-2

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Frank and Humphreys

Argued at Richmond, Virginia

LEVI MILTON WALKER, S/K/A

LEVY MILTON WALKER

v.

COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge


MEMORANDUM OPINION[1] BY JUDGE
RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III

Emmet D. Alexander for appellant.

Larry S. Hogan, Assistant Commonwealth’s
Attorney (William W. Davenport, Commonwealth’s Attorney; B. Scott
McMichael, Third Year Law Intern, on brief), for appellee.

Levi Milton Walker appeals his conviction of
driving under the influence. He contends that Chesterfield County
improperly enacted its driving under the influence ordinance.
Finding no error, we affirm.

The arrest warrant charged the defendant did
"drive or operate a motor vehicle under the influence of
alcoholic beverages or other self administered intoxicants and/or
drugs as described in Section 18.2-266(I), (II), (III) and/or
(IV) 1950 code of Virginia as amended." It then cited both
the local ordinance and the state code,
"13-1/18.2-266." The defendant pleaded not guilty but
stipulated the Commonwealth’s evidence and presented no defense
evidence. The trial court convicted the defendant of driving
under the influence in violation of Code ? 18.2-266.

The defendant argues the county ordinance was
invalid because the General Assembly amended the code after the
county adopted its ordinance. See Code ? 46.2-1313.
However, the final order clearly states the trial court convicted
the defendant of violating Code ? 18.2-266, not of violating the
local ordinance. The order from which the defendant appeals does
not reflect the issue he raises. We cannot consider the issue
raised because a court speaks only through its orders. See
Cunningham v. Smith, 205 Va. 205, 208, 135 S.E.2d 770, 773
(1964). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Pursuant to Code ? 17.1-413, recodifying Code
? 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for
publication.

 

Scroll To Top