Criminal: Man convicted of driving on a license revoked for DUI/manslaughter

Where the defendant argued he was wrongfully convicted of driving in May 2022 with a license revoked for DUI/manslaughter, because his August 2012 conviction only revoked his license for five years, but the revocation has no automatic end date and restoration is instead left to the discretion of the court, this argument failed.

Background

Following a bench trial, Nicholas Eugene Glover was convicted of driving on a license revoked for DUI/manslaughter, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Code § 46.2-391.

Analysis

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike because the evidence was insufficient to prove that his license was revoked when he was seen driving on May 22, 2022. Appellant contended that his license was revoked on Aug. 24, 2012—the date of his conviction for aggravated involuntary manslaughter— and that the revocation had lasted for five years, or until Aug. 24, 2017.

Pursuant to Code § 46.2-391 an individual whose license has been revoked may petition for restoration of their license after five years from revocation, but this restoration is not automatic—rather, “[o]n such petition, and for good cause shown, the court may, in its discretion, restore to the person the privilege to drive a motor vehicle.”

Accordingly, a revocation under Code § 46.2-391(B) remains in effect indefinitely until a court—in its discretion—restores an individual’s privilege to drive. As such, Code § 46.2-391(C) does not contain a set, five-year period of revocation as asserted by appellant, because the revocation has no automatic end date; instead, restoration is left to the discretion of the court.

The revocation of appellant’s license did not expire automatically by operation of law. And because appellant’s revocation under Code § 46.2-391(B) was not automatically “terminated by operation of the same statutory provision[] that first authorized [it],” he was driving on a license revoked for DUI/manslaughter when seen driving on May 22, 2022. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to strike, because the evidence was sufficient to prove that on that date, he was driving on a license revoked for DUI/manslaughter.

Affirmed.

Glover v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0113-24-1, July 22, 2025. CAV (Malveaux). From the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake (Telfeyan). Samantha Offutt Thames, Senior Appellate Attorney (Michelle C.F. Derrico, Senior Appellate Attorney; Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant. John A. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Mary Catherine Talbott, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-185. 7 pp.