Recent Blog Posts
Virginia Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Newly-Imposed Sentence After Violation of Probation | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of a Virginia court, the defendant challenged the lower court’s order subjecting him to three years and seven months of incarceration after an alleged violation of his probation agreement. According to the defendant, the trial court was wrong to consider certain evidence relating to a 2017 case in which he was involved. If the trial court had not improperly relied on this evidence, said the defendant, the outcome and sentencing would have been different. On appeal, the higher court reviewed the defendant’s argument and ultimately affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in February 2017. He was sentenced to twenty years of incarceration with eighteen years and seven months suspended, provided he could show “good behavior” for the entire twenty years. In March 2021, however, the trial court convicted the defendant of a new crime, possession of a firearm. Because this conviction qualified as a violation of the defendant’s probation terms, the court revoked the defendant’s suspended sentences and ordered him to three years and seven months of active incarceration.
Virginia Court Holds that Evidence was Sufficient to Convict Defendant of DWI | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his DWI conviction. Originally, a police officer found the defendant sleeping in his car, and upon several sobriety tests, the officer discovered that the defendant was intoxicated. The defendant was charged and convicted of driving while intoxicated. He appealed, arguing that there was not enough evidence to support the guilty finding. The court of appeals considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately denied it, concluding that the court could reasonably infer his guilt based on the facts presented by the officer.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, late one night in 2019, an officer was dispatched to investigate a report of two people asleep in their car. The officer found the reported vehicle partially parked on the sidewalk of a public street. Inside, the defendant and his girlfriend were both asleep. The car engine was off, but the gearshift was in the drive position and the headlights were on. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer smelled alcohol coming from inside.
Virginia Defendant Successfully Argues Officers Invaded Right to Privacy During Vehicle Search | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of a Virginia court, the Commonwealth attempted to argue that the defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating evidence should have been denied. Originally, two officers pulled the defendant over in his vehicle and searched the car after getting a glimpse of an open container as well as a bit of marijuana inside. The defendant argued the officers’ search was unconstitutional, and the lower court agreed with him. When the Commonwealth appealed, the higher court affirmed the lower court’s decision and concluded that the officers infringed on the defendant’s right to privacy.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, two officers stopped the defendant one evening after they noticed his car traveling across lanes without any turn signal. During the traffic stop, the officers noticed an open container of liquor in the passenger seat. The container appeared as if was partially empty, even though the bottle cap was still screwed on.
Virginia Defendant Loses Appeal in DWI Case, Despite Argument Regarding Insufficient Evidence | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of a Virginia court, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his convictions of drug possession and driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. One of the defendant’s main arguments on appeal was that the evidence failed to support a showing that he was guilty of driving while under the influence; given this lack of evidence, said the defendant, the conviction should be overturned. The court examined the evidence and ultimately disagreed with the defendant, affirming his convictions.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, a patrolling officer was dispatched to a service road one evening to check on a man who was reported to be asleep in his car in the middle of the road. When the officer arrived, he found the defendant sleeping in the driver’s seat. The officer approached the defendant, at which point the defendant took his foot off the brake pedal and unintentionally shifted the car forward.
Federal Appeals Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Drug Case, Despite Argument Citing Fair Sentencing Act | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of a court that oversees the Commonwealth of Virginia, the defendant appealed his 219-month sentence based on drug convictions. On appeal, the defendant argued that a law passed in 2010 reduced the maximum sentence he could face for a conviction related to cocaine possession. The court looked at the law in question and ultimately disagreed with the defendant, denying his appeal.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant was convicted approximately ten years ago of participating in a 2009 drug conspiracy. In 2012, a trial court concluded that the defendant had dealt with powder and crack cocaine in the conspiracy, and he was sentenced to 219 months in prison as a result.
Two years prior to the conviction, in 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses nationwide. After its enactment, the government had to decide whether or not the Act applied to defendants who had been convicted before 2010 – that is, did defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses qualify for lower sentences even if those convictions occurred prior to Congress’s passing of the Act? Congress decided in 2018 that yes, the Act would apply to pre-Act offenders who had not yet been sentenced when the Act became effective.
Virginia Court Sides with Defendant in Drug Case, Suppressing Incriminating Evidence Found through Police Coercion | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of a Virginia court, the Commonwealth appealed a lower court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress. In its argument, the Commonwealth emphasized that the court should not have suppressed incriminating evidence found on the defendant’s person because the defendant consented to the officer’s search, thus making it a reasonable circumstance under which the officers found illegal drugs. The higher court denied the Commonwealth’s appeal and affirmed that the drugs were properly suppressed.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant was riding in an Uber one afternoon when the Uber driver called 911 to report that the defendant was passed out in the back of the car. Officers arrived at the scene and approached the vehicle to speak with the defendant. At that point, the defendant was alert and able to communicate. The defendant got out of the car and moved to the sidewalk so that he could speak with the officers; at that point, one of the officers asked the defendant for his identification, and the defendant handed over a Colorado driver’s license as well as a Virginia driver’s license.
Virginia Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal Despite Argument Regarding Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of a Virginia court, the defendant’s appeal of his unlawful wounding conviction was denied. On appeal, the defendant argued that the court left too much time between the date he was arrested and the date of his trial. Because defendants in the United States and in Virginia have the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the defendant argued that his rights were violated and his conviction should be overturned. After examining the facts, the court disagreed with the defendant and denied the appeal.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant was criminally charged after he wounded an acquaintance in July 2019. He was arrested a couple of months later, and he was subsequently denied bail. His jury trial was scheduled for March 16, 2020, but the court’s emergency orders resulting from COVID-19 delayed any court proceedings that were supposed to take place starting mid-March. The defendant’s trial was pushed back, and he remained in custody while he awaited a new date.
Federal Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal of Long Prison Sentence in Firearms Case | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of a southeastern federal court, the defendant’s appeal of his 100-month prison sentence was denied. According to the defendant, the lower court had imposed a sentence that was too harsh, and it was only fair for the higher court to reevaluate the sentence to more accurately reflect the crime that the defendant committed. Ultimately, the court disagreed, and the defendant’s original sentence was affirmed.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, in 2016, the defendant in this case somehow acquired counterfeit twenty-dollar bills. He used these bills to purchase a weapon – specifically, a Ruger 9mm pistol along with ammunition. He was later indicted on two counts: (1) possession of a firearm and ammunition and (2) passing counterfeit money. Of note, the defendant in this case had been convicted of felonies in the past, meaning he could potentially face harsher consequences for the 2016 crime given his criminal history.
Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Drug Conviction in Probation Violation Case | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case coming out of a Virginia court, the defendant appealed her conviction based on a violation of her suspended sentence. The defendant was under a suspended sentence for several years and had been reporting to drug court throughout the years to prove that she was not using any narcotics or alcohol. After several violations, the defendant argued that at least two of her positive drug tests were the result of a single incident of drug usage, thus that it was unfair for the court to use both tests against her when finding her guilty of the violation. The court considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately affirmed her original guilty conviction.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was originally convicted of distribution of cocaine in 2009 and sentenced to three years in prison with an additional three years of suspension, conditioned upon good behavior and completion of probation. Several years later, the court determined that the defendant had violated the terms of her suspension, and she was again convicted, this time of forging a public record. The defendant was sentenced to additional time in prison (one year) as well as additional suspension, conditioned upon the completion of probation (ten years).
Virginia Defendant Successfully Appeals Grand Larceny Conviction | Robinson Law, PLLC
In a recent case involving grand larceny in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the defendant successfully appealed his guilty conviction by arguing that the Commonwealth lacked sufficient evidence to prove him guilty. After agreeing with the defendant’s main argument, the court of appeals vacated his conviction and dismissed his indictment.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant was working as a general contractor for a school in Norfolk when he was criminally charged. As part of his work, the defendant was installing a fire suppression system and was going to the construction site regularly to perform his duties. Around that time, an individual stole tools from a large brown box, and the police later named the defendant as a suspect in this theft. He was charged and, eventually, his case went to trial.

We Defend. We Recover.
You Move Forward
When You Call Robinson.
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
I have read and understand the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.

Call 703-844-3746 Today
and Get the Help You Need
