Criminal – Man convicted on two reckless driving charges

Where one trooper saw a distinctive vehicle driving recklessly as it sped away from him while grazing a wall, the vehicle was then stopped by a second trooper, and the distinctive vehicle showed evidence of grazing a wall and its brakes were hot, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that he was driving a different vehicle entirely.

Background

Following a jury trial, Xavier Lewis was found guilty of reckless driving generally, and of reckless driving by speed. On appeal, Lewis argues that the evidence was insufficient to support these two convictions and that he was not the driver of the speeding vehicle but rather was driving a different vehicle entirely.

Standard

Code § 46.2-862 states that a person is guilty of reckless driving if they travel at a “speed of 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit” or they travel at a speed “in excess of 85 miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.” A person is guilty of reckless driving, generally, when, regardless of speed, they “drive[] a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person.”

Analysis

The evidence produced at trial supported Lewis’s convictions for reckless driving. Trooper Hall testified that a smoky gray Camaro with dark tinted windows, dark rims and an extremely loud exhaust was driving over 131 miles per hour, was weaving in and out of traffic and was driving on the shoulder of the highway. Lewis was driving a Camaro that matched this description and the sidewalls on his vehicle’s tires were damaged in a manner consistent with one driving on the shoulder of a highway.

Moreover, Lewis was driving his vehicle near the exit used by the Camaro that Trooper Hall was pursuing and Lewis’s vehicle and brakes were hot. Although much of the evidence in this case is circumstantial, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction. And although there may have been inconsistencies in evidence presented, it was for the factfinder, and not the reviewing court, to resolve these inconsistencies.

Here, after considering the totality of the evidence, the jury concluded that Lewis was the one driving the speeding Camaro pursued by Trooper Hall. Because this conclusion was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it, there is no basis for disturbing this determination.

Affirmed.

Lewis v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0895-25-2, May 12, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (per curiam). From the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania County (Rigual). (James Joseph Ilijevich, on brief), for appellant. (Jay Jones, Attorney General; Kelly L. Sturman, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-196. 6 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-196