Case Results

Get the Norfolk, Virginia law firm focused on winning your case

The outcome of your legal case matters. That’s why it’s critical that you have a law firm on your side that knows how to win and has the track record to prove it.

In case after case, our highly-skilled Norfolk, Virginia lawyers at Welch & Wright, PLLC consistently achieve positive results, whether it’s having criminal charges dismissed or securing a not guilty verdict.

The key to our success is simple. We never take anything for granted. We work tirelessly to find the facts to build the strongest possible legal case. We’re also not afraid of challenging legal cases. If we have to go to court to fight for your rights, we have the legal skills and courtroom knowledge you need to succeed.

Notable case results

***Please note that every case is different. Just because another client received a favorable outcome for their case does not mean you will receive the same or even a similar outcome for your case, even with the same charge. That is why it is important to reach out and talk with an experienced attorney here at Welch & Wright so they can evaluate your case and advise you accordingly.

Jurisdiction: Newport News General District Court

Charges: DUI 1^st Offense; Driving with Open Container; Failure to Maintain Lane

Case Result: After having received multiple charges after being pulled over late one night, the client reached out to speak to Mr. Wright at Welch & Wright, PLLC. Although the client was admittedly drinking a beer while driving, he had performed very well on field sobriety tests, and was polite with the officers throughout the arrest. He ended up agreeing to a breathalyzer at the police station, where he proceeded to have a BAC level of .05, which is below the legal limit in Virginia. The prosecutor offered to amend the charge to Reckless Driving and for the client to plead guilty to the amended charge. Upon Mr. Wright’s advice, the client denied the plea offer and moved forward on a not guilty plea to trial. Mr. Wright was able to argue for a not guilty finding on the Reckless Driving charge after the Commonwealth proceeded to amend the DUI charge before the trial (this is an easier charge theoretically for him to prove). The court found the client not guilty of Reckless Driving and imposed a small fine for the open container charge and the failure to maintain lane charge. The client avoided jail time, a license suspension, the requirement to install an ignition interlock in his vehicle, and to enroll in and complete a VASAP course.

Jurisdiction: Norfolk General District Court

Charge: Vicious Dog Bite (Felony)

Case Result: After an incident involving her dog and a friend, the client reached out to speak to an attorney at Welch & Wright, PLLC. The animal control department had taken custody of the dog and had obtained a warrant for a felony charge of possessing a vicious dog. The client was not only upset about facing a felony charge and possible jail time but also was extremely upset over the possibility of her dog being euthanized. Mr. Wright consoled the client and explained every bit of the process. At the first trial date on the felony charge, Mr. Wright was able to convince the prosecutors to dismiss the felony charge. Despite this, the animal control officer wished to pursue the case against the dog with the desired result being that the dog was to be euthanized. After attempts to negotiate with the animal control officer about returning the dog not being successful, Mr. Wright contacted the city Attorney about the case. At the civil hearing, the City Attorney agreed to dismiss the case, and shortly thereafter, the client’s dog was returned to her possession after being housed in a shelter for over 4 months. Ultimately the client avoided any criminal conviction, but more importantly, was able to have her loved one returned home.

Jurisdiction: Northampton Circuit Court

Charge: Speeding 77/55

Case Result: The client contacted Welch & Wright, PLLC after having been found guilty of a traffic infraction in the Northampton General District Court. The client had represented himself and was found guilty of Improper Driving by the lower court judge. The client was going through the process of seeking asylum in the U.S. and was worried about having any sort of conviction on his record. His driving record was spotless before this ticket. On appeal, Mr. Wright advised the client to appear in court and to complete a driver improvement course. At trial, Mr. Wright was able to convince the judge to accept the driving school and dismiss the charge.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 84/55

Case Result: The client contacted Welch & Wright, PLLC about this charge, worried about the possibility of an active jail sentence and a license suspension. Mr. Wright was able to appear on the client’s behalf in court and convinced the judge to only impose a fine of $300.00, with no license suspension or jail sentence.

Jurisdiction: Accomack General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 76/55

Case Result: The client contacted Welch & Wright, PLLC about this charge, worried about the misdemeanor that would accompany this charge and how it could affect his new job. The client was ex-military and concerned about having this charge on his record. Mr. Wright advised the client to complete a driver improvement course before the trial date. On the trial date, Mr. Wright was able to appear on the client’s behalf and was able to convince the judge to reduce the charge of Reckless Driving down to a Defective Equipment charge which is a non-moving violation. The client only had to pay a fine of $100.00 and was able to avoid the misdemeanor conviction or increase in his insurance premiums due to the charge finalizing as a non-moving violation.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 85/55

Case Result: After receiving this charge, the client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC, worried about how this charge could affect his Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). Mr. Wright advised the client to have the speedometer calibrated on his vehicle so it could be used in court to show the judge there was an issue with his speedometer. Mr. Wright was able to appear on the client’s behalf and convinced the judge to accept the calibration and reduce the charge from a Reckless Driving charge, a misdemeanor, to an Improper Driving charge with a $200.00 fine. This allowed the client to avoid a criminal conviction, minimize any effects on his CDL, and to avoid driving to court from out-of-state.

Jurisdiction: Newport News General District Court

Charges: Reckless Driving 88/65; Expired Inspection; Improper Display of License Plates; HOV Lane Violation

Case Result: The client reached out to the Attorneys at Welch & Wright, PLLC concerned about the multitude of charges he had received from a recent traffic stop. Besides the speed that the officer clocked him at, the client also had not had his car inspected in over a year, did not have a front license plate attached, and was driving in the HOV lane during rush hour while he was alone. The client was young and had not been to court before and was desperate for legal advice. Mr. Wright advised the client to complete a reckless and aggressive driver improvement course (RADEP), to have his vehicle properly inspected, and to have the front license plate properly reattached to his vehicle. The client met Mr. Wright in court and brought proof of all these issues being fixed, including the driving school certificate, the updated inspection, and a picture of the front of his vehicle. Mr. Wright was able to convince the court to dismiss the expired inspection and license plate charges. Mr. Wright was also able to convince the judge to reduce the Reckless Driving charge to a traffic infraction of Improper Driving so the client could avoid a criminal conviction. The fine for the Improper Driving charge and HOV Violation totaled $150.00, which is well under the maximum fines.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 75/45

Case Result The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC, concerned about the effect this Reckless Driving charge could have on her career. She was pulled over late at night on the way to see her family the day before Thanksgiving. She worked in New York City as an EMS but was in the process of training to become a firefighter for the New York Fire Department. The misdemeanor that accompanies this conviction had her most worried. Mr. Wright advised her to complete a driver improvement course and to send in her pristine driving record. Mr. Wright was able to appear in court on her behalf and was able to convince the judge to reduce the charge of Reckless Driving to a traffic infraction of Improper Driving with a lower fine of $300.00. She avoided the misdemeanor conviction and had no issues continuing the process of becoming a firefighter for the NYFD.

Jurisdiction: Norfolk General District Court

Charges: Reckless Driving 92/65

Case Result: After receiving this charge, the client promptly reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC to speak to an attorney. He was a member of the Navy and was concerned about the possibility of an active jail sentence and a loss of his privilege to drive in Virginia. Mr. Wright advised the client to complete a reckless and aggressive driver improvement course and to complete community service hours before the trial date. After completing the course and over 24 hours of community service, the client appeared in court with Mr. Wright where he was able to avoid any jail time or license suspension. The court only imposed a fine of $500.00 with a stern warning for the client not to continue driving at these speeds. The lack of any active jail time allowed the client to avoid any further punishment from his command, whom he had made aware of the incident upon being advised by Mr. Wright to do so.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Speeding 88/70

Case Result: After receiving this speeding ticket, the client promptly reached out for legal advice from the attorneys at Welch & Wright, PLLC. Due to her clean record, Mr. Wright was able to appear on her behalf in court and was able to convince the judge to amend the charge to a non-moving violation with a small fine of $100.00. This allowed the client to avoid any insurance premiums that may have resulted upon being convicted of the moving violation.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charges: Speeding 83/70; Expired Inspection

Case Result: After receiving this speeding ticket, the client promptly reached out for legal advice from the attorneys at Welch & Wright, PLLC. Due to his clean record, Mr. Wright was able to appear on his behalf in court and was able to convince the judge to amend the charge to a non-moving violation with a small fine of $100.00. This allowed the client to avoid any insurance premiums that may have resulted upon being convicted of the moving violation. Mr. Wright was also able to have the inspection charge dismissed after having the client send him proof that the inspection had been passed prior to the trial date.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 90/70

Case Result: The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC to receive legal advice about how to best handle this Reckless Driving ticket. He was a college student and worried how a misdemeanor conviction could affect his status with the school and his future job prospects. Mr. Wright advised the client to complete a driver improvement course. At trial, Mr. Wright was able to convince the judge to reduce the charge to a Defective Equipment charge. The result allowed the client to not only avoid a criminal conviction, but to also avoid any points that may have affected his insurance premiums. The client only needed to pay the small fine imposed by the court of $100.00 plus court costs.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 95/70

Case Result: The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC to receive legal advice about how to best handle this Reckless Driving ticket. He was a college student and worried how a misdemeanor conviction could affect his status with the school and his future job prospects. Mr. Wright advised the client to complete a driver improvement course. At trial, Mr. Wright was able to convince the judge to reduce the charge to a Defective Equipment charge. Not only did the client avoid a criminal conviction, but he was able to avoid any points going on his license. Therefore, his insurance premiums were unaffected. He only needed to pay the small fine of $100.00 to the court.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 107/70

Case Result: The client reached out to the attorneys at Welch & Wright, PLLC seeking legal advice about this serious charge. She was aware that not only was this Reckless Driving charge a misdemeanor, but that the police officer who pulled her over warned that there was a high likelihood of an active jail sentence if she was convicted due to the speed involved. Mr. Welch was able to calm the client and informed her that although active jail sentences are quite common in every jurisdiction once you are caught going 100 mph or higher, that there was still a chance to avoid an active sentence and a license suspension. The client had an ongoing family emergency at the time she was pulled. Mr. Welch carefully explained this situation to the judge on the trial date, without excusing the dangerous nature of the speed. Mr. Welch also introduced an aggressive driver improvement course and over 30 hours of community service that the client had completed in anticipation of court on his advice. The judge was sympathetic to the situation and imposed a fully suspended jail sentence, meaning that the client did not have to serve any of the time. The judge did not suspend the client’s license and imposed an extremely low fine for this speed of $250.00.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 94/70

Case Result: The client promptly reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC, seeking legal advice from an attorney about a less-than-polite interaction with a police officer during a traffic stop. The client was charged with Reckless Driving and refused to sign the summons the police officer had offered him. The client was confused about what signing the ticket meant, which upset the police officer. Mr. Wright advised the client to complete a driver improvement course for the case. On the trial date, Mr. Wright was able to carefully explain the misunderstanding the client had about signing the ticket and was able to still convince the judge to amend the charge to a simple speeding ticket so the client could avoid a criminal conviction. The fine imposed was $104.00 plus court costs.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Speeding 85/70; Expired Inspection

Case Result: The client had reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC, seeking to speak to Mr. Wright, as he had been represented by Mr. Wright on a traffic case several years prior. The client was so happy with the service Mr. Wright had given before, that he wished to retain him for these new charges. After completing a driver improvement course, Mr. Wright was able to appear in court on the client’s behalf and have the Speeding charge reduced to a non-moving violation with a $100.00 fine.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Speeding 89/70

Case Result: Having recently received a speeding ticket, the client reached out to several law firms before deciding to hire Welch & Wright, PLLC. After having been advised by Mr. Wright, the client was able to avoid coming to court. Mr. Wright was able to convince the judge to reduce the charge to a non-moving violation with a small fine of $100.00. The client was able to avoid any points on her license, which meant her insurance premiums were not affected.

Jurisdiction: Accomack General District Court and Accomack Circuit Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 78/45

Case Result: After having received the Reckless Driving charge, the client reached out to speak to the lawyers at Welch & Wright, PLLC. He was concerned about the class 1 misdemeanor accompanying the charge and how this could affect his job working for the Department of Defense and his security clearance. Mr. Wright advised the client that it would be very difficult to have the charge reduced in the General District Court due to the speed involved. However, he still insisted that the client be present on the trial date and to complete a driver improvement course and community service hours to show the court how seriously he was taking the charge. Despite following all of Mr. Wright’s advice, the judge still found the client guilty as charged and imposed a $400.00 fine. A disappointing outcome, but not unpredicted, as Mr. Wright had warned against this outcome. Mr. Wright advised the client to appeal the case to the Circuit Court so they could have a second bite at the apple. The client did appeal the case and at trial in the Circuit Court, Mr. Wright was able to convince this judge to amend the charge of Reckless Driving to a traffic infraction of Improper Driving with a fine of $250.00. Not only was the charge reduced on appeal to avoid a criminal conviction, but the fine was reduced as well. The client did not have to worry about the traffic infraction affecting his job or security clearances.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 76/55 –Too Fast for Conditions

Case Result: The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC after being pulled over and charged with Reckless Driving. She explained that the officer wrote her the ticket not only because her speed was fast, but she was also driving at this speed in rainy conditions. Mr. Wright advised the client to complete a driver improvement course before the trial date. On the trial date, Mr. Wright was able to appear in court on the client’s behalf and was able to convince the judge to amend the charge of Reckless Driving to the traffic infraction of Improper Driving, despite the rain being an aggravating factor. This allowed her to avoid the criminal conviction, and she only needed to pay the fine of $140.00 plus court costs to the court.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 74/45

Case Result: The client reached out to the lawyers at Welch & Wright, PLLC after having received this Reckless Driving ticket while returning home after celebrating New Year’s Eve with his family. He is a medical school student in Florida and was worried about the possible criminal conviction and how it could affect his schooling and future career. He was also worried about traveling up for the trial date during a busy school year. Mr. Wright advised the client to complete a driver improvement course before the trial date. Due to the client being a student in an out-of-state school, Mr. Wright was able to appear on the client’s behalf on the trial date and convinced the judge to amend the charge from the crime of Reckless Driving to the traffic infraction of Improper Driving. The client was able to avoid a criminal conviction and had any possible effect on his insurance minimized. This also allowed him to avoid any negative effects on his schooling or on his future career. He only needs to pay the fine of $200.00 to the court along with the court costs.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 71/45

Case Result: The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC concerned about the Reckless Driving charge and her inability to be at the trial date due to her job as a merchant fisherman. After being advised by Mr. Wright, she completed a driver improvement course and sent the certificate to his office for the trial date. On the trial date, Mr. Wright was able to appear on her behalf and was able to convince the judge to reduce the charge from Reckless Driving to Improper Driving, a traffic infraction, with a fine imposed of $200.00.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 69/45

Case Result: The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC concerned about the Reckless Driving charge and the negative effects the criminal conviction could have on his job as a government contractor with a secret security clearance. Mr. Wright was able to appear on his behalf and was able to convince the judge to reduce the charge from Reckless Driving to Improper Driving, a traffic infraction, with a fine imposed of $200.00.

Jurisdiction: Chesapeake General District Court

Charge: Shoplifting

Case Result: After being charged with shoplifting, the client promptly reached out to speak to the attorneys at Welch & Wright, PLLC. After admitting that she had made a mistake, Mr. Wright was able to console her and advise that she complete a shoplifter’s prevention course before the trial date. On the trial date, the loss prevention officer from the store was not present, and Mr. Wright successfully argued a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The judge granted the motion and dismissed the charge. The client had nothing further to do and her charge was now able to be expunged off her record.

Jurisdiction: Virginia Beach Circuit Court

Charge: Speeding 47/35

Case Result: After being found guilty as charged in the lower court, the client had her case appealed to the Circuit Court for a new trial. After being advised to complete a driver improvement course, Mr. Wright was able to appear on her behalf in Circuit Court and convinced the judge to dismiss the charge upon the client’s payment of court costs.

Jurisdiction: Virginia Beach General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 76/55

Case Result: The client reached out to several law firms before deciding to retain the lawyers at Welch & Wright, PLLC for the Reckless Driving charge he received for getting on the interstate near the Virginia Beach Oceanfront. The client drove a lot for his job and had several prior speeding tickets within the last few years. He was worried that he would not receive a break in this case because his record was less than stellar. After being advised by Mr. Wright, the client went to a local car shop and had his speedometer calibrated. Mr. Wright was able to appear in court on the client’s behalf and use the speedometer calibration to convince the judge to amend the charge of Reckless Driving to a simple speeding ticket with a fine of $114.00. This allowed the client to avoid a misdemeanor conviction, reduce the amount of points placed on his record, and avoid a license suspension.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 73/45

Case Result: The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC after receiving this Reckless Driving ticket. He drove up and down the East Coast for his job and was worried about having his privilege to drive in Virginia suspended. After consulting Mr. Wright, the client completed a driver improvement course and was eager to appear in court. Mr. Wright convinced the judge to amend the charge from Reckless Driving to a simple speeding ticket of 54/45 zone with a small fine of $54.00. The client avoided a misdemeanor conviction, lowered the risk of his insurance premiums increasing, and did not have to worry about his license being suspended.

Jurisdiction: Accomack General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 83/45

Case Result: After receiving a Reckless Driving charge at a high speed, the client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC concerned about a jail sentence and a license suspension. The client was in the Navy and knew he would be deployed during the trial date. After a consultation with Mr. Wright, the client promptly had his speedometer calibrated at a local shop and it was shown to be off by around 5 mph. Mr. Wright was able to appear in court on the client’s behalf and convinced the judge to accept the speedometer calibration. The judge amended the charge to 78/45 to reflect the discrepancy with his speedometer and assessed a fine of $500.00. The judge did not impose a jail sentence or license suspension.

Jurisdiction: Accomack General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 84/45

Case Result: After receiving a Reckless Driving charge at a high speed, the client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC concerned about a jail sentence and a license suspension. Mr. Wright advised the client to be present in court and to complete a driver improvement course, as well as some community service hours. At trial, Mr. Wright was able to convince the judge to accept the mitigation done by the client and avoided a jail sentence or a license suspension. The judge only imposed a fine of $650.00 plus court costs.

Jurisdiction: Norfolk General District Court

Charges: Petty Larceny

Case Result: After being arrested and charged with shoplifting, the client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC to get legal expertise on her situation. There seemed to be some issues that would make it difficult for the client to be convicted, so Mr. Wright appeared in court prepared to move forward on a trial. The loss prevention officer did not appear in court, and Mr. Wright made a motion to dismiss the charge for failure to prosecute. The judge granted the motion, and the charge was dismissed. The client did not need to take any further action and was able to begin the expungement process.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 68/45

Case Result: After receiving this charge while driving through Northampton County, VA, the client reached out to the lawyers at Welch & Wright, PLLC. The client was only 19 years old and had not been pulled over before. He also lived out of state and was unsure how he would be able to make the trial date. Mr. Wright was able to appear on the client’s behalf on the trial date, and he convinced the judge to reduce the charge from a Reckless Driving charge to the traffic infraction of Improper Driving. The court only imposed a fine of $180.00 and the client avoided a criminal conviction, a license suspension, and an inconvenient drive back to Virginia.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 91/70

Case Result: After having received this Reckless Driving charge and being worried about a criminal conviction, the client reached out to speak with a lawyer at Welch & Wright, PLLC. After a consultation with Mr. Wright, the client completed a driver’s improvement course before the trial date. Mr. Wright was able to appear on the client’s behalf on the trial date and convinced the judge to accept the driver’s school course and to amend the Reckless Driving charge to a simple speeding ticket with a fine of $54.00. The client avoided a criminal conviction, a license suspension, and lowered the points that were assessed to his driving record.

Jurisdiction: Northampton General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 75/45

Case Result: The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC after having received this Reckless Driving charge. He was only 19 years old, new to Virginia, and was worried about having his license suspended or even going to jail. After a consultation with Mr. Wright, the client appeared in court on the trial date, having completed a driver’s improvement course. Mr. Wright was able to convince the judge to not impose a jail sentence or a license suspension, and the only punishment was a reduced fine of $250.00 plus court costs.

Jurisdiction: Virginia Beach General District Court

Charge: False Statement on a Firearm (Felony)

Case Result: After receiving this felony charge, the client reached out to several law firms before choosing to retain Mr. Welch of Welch & Wright, PLLC. The client was mostly concerned about the felony conviction, which would result in the loss of his right to vote and right to possess a firearm. The client was also worried about a lengthy jail sentence. The facts of the case were quite unusual, as the protective order that was alleged to have been active against the client could not be found in the court’s database or files. Mr. Welch was able to negotiate a plea deal with the prosecution that amended the charge to a misdemeanor and resulted in no active jail time.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Speeding 83/65

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Reckless Driving 90/70

Case Result: After receiving this Reckless Driving charge, the client promptly reached out for legal advice from the attorneys at Welch & Wright, PLLC. After a consultation with Mr. Wright, she completed a driver’s improvement course in anticipation of the trial date. Mr. Wright was able to appear on her behalf in court and was able to convince the judge to amend the charge to a non-moving violation with a small fine of $100.00. This allowed the client to avoid any insurance premiums that may have resulted upon being convicted of the moving violation.

Jurisdiction: York General District Court

Charge: Failure to Maintain Lane

Case Result: The client reached out to Welch & Wright, PLLC to seek advice on how she should go about handling this traffic matter. She had never received a ticket before in her life. The officer had pulled her over for swerving outside of her lane on Interstate 64, and she was extremely nervous during the traffic stop. Mr. Wright was able to appear in court with the client, explain the situation to the judge, and convince the judge to amend the charge to a non-moving violation due to the relatively minor nature of the driving behavior. The court imposed a fine of $100.00, but the client avoided any points being applied to her record, and therefore, there was no effect on her insurance.

Jurisdiction: Chesapeake General District Court

Charge: Brandishing a Firearm

Case Result: The client reached out to speak to a defense attorney when she called Welch & Wright, PLLC following an altercation with a man in her home that resulted in her being charged with brandishing a firearm. The client told Mr. Wright during the consultation that she only produced her gun in self-defense. The client swore out her own charges against the man and the case was set for trial. On the trial date, Mr. Wright was able to negotiate a deal with the prosecutor and the other man’s attorney to drop all of the charges on an agreement between the parties not to see or speak to one another moving forward. The charge against our client was dropped and eligible to be expunged off of her record.

Client: C. D.
Charge(s): Driving Under the Influence 1^st, Driving Under the Influence 2^nd, Resisting Arrest, Civil Refusal.

Summary: Client C.D. was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) first offense and then DUI second offense while awaiting trial on the first count. Client had medical issues that contributed to the second charge, along with the Resisting Arrest and Refusal Charges. Client was originally held without bond, but Calum Welch was able to successfully argue for a bond on appeal to the Circuit Court.

Outcome: No Additional Jail Time. Calum Welch negotiated a plea agreement in which the prosecutor agreed to drop the other charges, in exchange for client pleading guilty to the two DUIs. Calum indicated that there were significant evidentiary issues with at least one of the charges and mitigating medical circumstances for the offenses. Client was not sentenced to any additional time, beyond their time spent in pre-trial detention, and client was only ordered to pay fines and court costs and complete the Virginia Alcohol Action Safety Program (VASAP).

Client: J. G.
Charge(s): Felony Eluding, Driving While Intoxicated, Reckless Driving by Speed, Failure to Appear, Failure to Obey a Traffic Signal, Expired Registration.

Summary: Client J.G. was charged with Felony Eluding, Driving While Intoxicated, Reckless Driving by Speed, Failure to Obey a Traffic Signal, and Expired Registration, after crashing their vehicle. Though under the legal limit, client had a negative interaction between alcohol and their prescription medication, leading to the crash.

Outcome: No Jail Time. Calum Welch negotiated a plea agreement in which the prosecutor agreed to amend the Felony Eluding charge to a misdemeanor. Due to the lack of prior criminal history and the client’s mitigating circumstances, the client pled guilty to the Misdemeanor Eluding Charge and Driving Under the Influence First Offense. All the possible jail time was suspended, and client only had to pay a fine and court costs.

Client: B.A.
Charge(s): Felony Eluding. Driving without a Motorcycle Endorsement, DUI 1^st Offense, Reckless Driving – Racing, Reckless Driving by Speed

Summary: Client was pulled over on a motorcycle after failing to stop for police. The sentencing guidelines had a midpoint of 7 months, which judges usually use to determine jail sentences.

Outcome: 30 days active time, despite the Sentencing Guidelines calling for 7 months. After refusing the prosecutor’s offer of 7 months for the Eluding charge, the case proceeded to sentencing. Although the Judge found the client guilty of the Felony Eluding and Motorcycle Endorsement charges, Nick was able to convince the judge to go well below what the midpoint of the Sentencing Guidelines called for (7 months). For the Felony Eluding, the client was sentenced to 3 years and 30 days in jail, with 3 years of the sentence suspended. Client only had 30 days of active jail time. The judge suspended his license for a period of 60 days. For the misdemeanor, the judge imposed a fine of $250. The suspended sentence for the felony was conditioned upon client being of uniform good behavior for 5 years.

The remaining three charges were dismissed at the preliminary hearing through negotiations and an agreement with the prosecutor.

Client: J.T.
Charge(s): Possession of Schedule I/II Drugs, Failure to Appear

Summary: Client was in the car with a friend when a police officer made a traffic stop for running a redlight. Client was searched and found to be in possession of schedule I/II drugs.

Outcome: 30 days in jail. Despite the client’s prior drug convictions, Nick Wright, through a plea deal negotiated with the prosecutor in circuit court, was able to keep the amount of jail time down to 30 active days on the drug charge. The judge found the client guilty of felony drug possession and imposed a sentence of 3 years but suspended 2 years and 11 months for a period of 3 years conditioned on uniform good behavior. Client only had 1 month of felony time in jail which translated to about a 20-day active sentence. The judge found client guilty of Failure to Appear and imposed a 10-day sentence but suspended the entirety of that sentence for a period of 1 year, conditioned on keeping the peace and being of uniform good behavior.

Client: K.S.
Charge(s): DUI 2^nd Offense w/n 10 years, Refusal to Submit to Breath Test

Summary: Client was pulled over after police received reports of a car swerving on the road. Once pulled over, client refused to undergo any FSTs, blow into the roadside PBT or to blow into the breathalyzer machine at the station.

Outcome: Not guilty of DUI charge. After reviewing the facts of the case, Nick advised his client to take the case to trial. After the trial, the judge found the client not guilty of the DUI charge. The judge found the defendant guilty of the Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test and suspended their privilege to drive in Virginia for 1 year, as is required by statute. The only valid defense to a refusal charge is that the person was physically unable to submit to the test. The DUI charge was expungable.

Client: D. K.
Charge(s): Felony Strangulation, Three (3) Counts Domestic Assault & Battery, Disseminating Photos of Another.

Summary: Client was accused by a former partner following a breakup. The former partner went directly to a magistrate and obtained warrants for the charges and was granted protective order. Initially, client was held without bond and unable to return to his own home following release.

Outcome: Not guilty on all counts. Calum Welch contacted the prosecutor and identified serious credibility issues with the client’s former partner, the alleged victim. It was later revealed that police had previously charged the former partner with Domestic Assault and Battery against the client after responding to client’s home before the former partner had taken out the charges against the client. After discussing the matter with the prosecutor and the defense attorney for the client’s former partner, the former partner invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Calum then successfully argued to the Court that under the circumstances, all parties would invoke their Fifth Amendment rights if the matter proceeded to trial. The Judge then found the client not guilty on all charges.

Client: Z. J.
Charge(s): Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) First Offense

Summary: Client got into an accident after turning when he did not see the other vehicle. Law enforcement then found beer cans in the car and client was charged with DWI 1^st.

Outcome: Amended to Reckless Driving Generally. Calum Welch negotiated a plea deal in which the Commonwealth amended the charge to a Reckless Driving. Calum indicated that the client’s blood alcohol level (BAC) was not only below the legal limit but was also low enough to warrant a presumption that client was not legally intoxicated. Client pled guilty to the “wet reckless” and received an all-suspended jail sentence on the condition that he pay court costs and complete the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP).

Client: J. S.
Charge(s): Five (5) counts of Shoplifting.

Summary: Client was charged with five counts of shoplifting from the same store.

Outcome: All charges dismissed. Calum Welch negotiated a plea deal in which the prosecutor dropped/dismissed all charges in exchange for the client completing the first-time offender program under § 19.2-303.2. After completing the program, all charges were dismissed without an adjudication of guilt and the client only had to pay court costs.

Client: L. G.
Charge(s): False Statement on Firearm Form.

Summary: Client was charged with a felony after mistakenly checking that they had never been convicted of any crime of Domestic Violence. The underlying charges were from over fifteen (15) years ago.

Outcome: Amended to Obstruction of Justice misdemeanor with no jail time. Calum Welch negotiated a plea deal in which the prosecutor agreed to amend the felony was amended to a misdemeanor Obstruction of Justice charge. Calum indicated that client did not have any serious criminal history and that the facts of the case did not align with the changes in law that prevent a Virginia resident from seeking to purchase a firearm. Client pled guilty and all 12 months of possible jail time were suspended with client only having to pay $97 in court costs with no supervised probation.

Client: M.J.
Charge(s): DUI 1^st Offense BAC Greater than .15

Outcome: Only mandatory minimum sentence served. The judge found client guilty of the charge and imposed a jail sentence of 12 months but suspended 11 months and 20 days. The 10 days remaining was a mandatory minimum sentence that must be done in full; however, the judge allowed client to serve the time on the weekends. The rest of the sentence was conditioned on keeping the peace and being of good behavior. The judge suspended client’s privilege to drive in Virginia, but allowed a restricted license on the condition that client had an ignition interlock installed on the vehicle for 6 months. The court ordered client to complete the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP) and imposed a $250 fine.

Client: R.A.
Charge(s): DUI 1^st Offense

Outcome: No active jail time. The judge found the client guilty of the charge and imposed 6 months in jail, with all 6 months suspended for a period of 1 year, condition on client keeping the peace and being of good behavior. Therefore, client did not have to serve any active time in jail. Client was ordered to complete VASAP and his privilege to drive in Virginia was suspended for 1 year. A restricted license was granted as long as client had an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicle for 6 months. The court imposed a fine of $250.

Client: S.V.
Charge(s): DUI 1^st Offense BAC over .15, Reckless Driving Improper Brakes, Failure to Carry a License

Outcome: 2 charges dismissed, and mandatory minimum jail sentence on the DUI. Through a plea deal Nick negotiated with the prosecutor, the court dismissed the Reckless Driving and Failure to Carry a License charge. The court found the defendant guilty of the DUI charge and imposed a 90-day jail sentence but suspended 85 days of that sentence. The 5 days left were mandatory, and client had to serve them all, but was allowed to serve them on weekends. The court suspended client’s license for 1 year, but granted her a restricted license, as long as she had an ignition interlock device installed on her vehicle for a period of 6 months. The suspended jail sentence was conditioned upon her keeping the peace and being of good behavior for 1 year. The court ordered client to complete VASAP and imposed a fine of $250.

Client: S.D.
Charge(s): DUI 1^st Offense. Reckless Driving- Generally. Refusal of Breath Test

Summary: Client was pulled over after the police received a call about a vehicle swerving with damage done to the back bumper and driving on a flat tire.

Outcome: Not guilty on DUI, and no jail on the other 2 charges. Through plea negotiations and an agreement with the prosecutor, the court dismissed the DUI charge. Nick pointed out there was a lack of evidence to prove the client was under the influence, despite there being a single car accident. The court found client guilty of the Refusal charge and suspended his license for 1 year. The judge found client guilty of the Reckless Driving charge and imposed a $100 fine.

Client: S. D.
Charge(s): Two (2) counts of Felony Eluding, Possession with Intent to Distribute (PWID) Marijuana, Reckless Driving by Speed (110 mph in a 60 mph zone), Reckless Driving – Inoperable Brakes, Speeding (80 mph in a 70 mph zone), Operate Uninspected/Uninsured Vehicle.

Summary: Out of state client was charged with eluding police through multiple jurisdictions. After spike strips were deployed, the vehicle eventually crashed. There were two passengers in the car and a felony level of Marijuana was found in the vehicle following a search by law enforcement. The client was arrested and initially held without bond. Calum Welch was able to negotiate the client’s release on bond and they were able to return home. Calum indicated that there were evidentiary issues with the items found in the car and the identity of the person driving.

Outcome: No additional jail time and all other charges dropped. Calum negotiated a plea deal in which client pled guilty to one count of Eluding and the prosecutor agreed to drop all the other charges. All five (5) years of possible jail time were suspended on the condition that the client would have their driving privileges in Virginia suspended, and they would complete probation in their home state. No fine was imposed, and client only had to pay court costs.

Client: D. S.
Charge(s): Hit and Run Misdemeanor

Summary: Client was charged after police responded to a crash involving several parked vehicles. Client was not found at the scene and there were conflicting eyewitness accounts.

Outcome: Charge Nolle Prosequi (dropped). Calum Welch informed the Commonwealth that there were significant evidentiary issues, including whether client was driving any vehicle or was even at the scene. When the case was called for trial, the prosecutor dropped the charge.

Client: J. W.
Charge(s): Assault & Battery Against a Family Member, Brandishing of a Firearm, Reckless Handling of a Firearm.

Summary: Client was charged after an argument between visiting family members inside their own home. Calum indicated that there were legitimate self-defense claims and issues with the credibility of the witnesses. Calum also pointed out that client was a well-respected member of the community with a lack of prior criminal history.

Outcome: 2 charges dismissed. Calum Welch negotiated a plea deal in which client pled guilty to Reckless Handling of a Firearm in exchange for the prosecutor dropping the Assault & Battery and Brandishing charges. Client was sentenced to ninety (90) days in jail, with all but eighty-two (82) days suspended. Due to the misdemeanor time calculation, the client only served four (4) days in jail.

Client: J. B.
Charge(s): Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) First Offense

Summary: Client was stopped by police because the vehicle they were driving allegedly matched the description of a vehicle that had crashed and driven through a person’s yard earlier that evening. Client denied the allegations but was eventually placed under arrest following the completion of field sobriety tests.

Outcome: Amended to Reckless Driving Generally – No jail time imposed. After making several appearances and arguing multiple suppression motions, Calum Welch negotiated a plea deal in which the prosecutor amended the DWI charge to Reckless Driving. Client pled guilty to the “wet reckless” and all ninety (90) days of potential jail time were suspended. Client only had to pay fines and court costs and complete the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP).

Client: T. T.
Charge(s): Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) First Offense and Civil Refusal

Summary: Police found client locked outside of a room in a hotel hallway. Police located the client’s vehicle at a property near the hotel. Police interrogated and eventually arrested client, even though client was never seen near the vehicle.

Outcome: All charges Nolle Prosequi (dropped). After a suppression hearing where the Judge found that the client was subjected to a custodial interrogation without the administration of Miranda warnings, Calum Welch informed the prosecutor that there was no evidence to prove that Defendant was ever behind the wheel. Calum also indicated that without a lawful, valid arrest, the client was not legally obligated to submit to a breath or blood alcohol test. When the case was called for trial, the prosecutor dropped all the charges.

Client: B. S.
Charge(s): Assault & Battery x2

Summary: Client B.S. was charged Assault & Battery after trying to break up a fight outside of a bar.

Outcome: Nolle Prosequi (Dropped). Roughly two years had elapsed between the time of the fight and the time client was finally served with the warrants. Calum Welch indicated to prosecutors that there were significant evidentiary issues and that the matters may have been brought before the court after the statute of limitations had tolled. After communicating with the alleged victims, the prosecutor moved to drop the charges when the case was called for trial.

Client: R. P.
Charge(s): Two (2) counts of Shoplifting.

Summary: Client was charged with two counts of shoplifting from the same store.

Outcome: All charges dropped/dismissed. Calum Welch negotiated a plea deal in which the prosecutor dropped one count and dismissed the other charge in exchange for the client completing the first-time offender program under § 19.2-303.2. After completing the program, the remaining charge was dismissed without an adjudication of guilt and client only had to pay court costs.

Client: T. S.
Charge(s): Failure to Yield (Traffic Infraction) – later Reckless Driving Generally

Summary: Client was initially charged with a Failure to Yield Right of Way traffic infraction after being hit and hospitalized by a commercial vehicle. The local prosecutors later amended the charge to a misdemeanor count of Reckless Driving Generally when client did not plead guilty to the original charge.

Outcome: Not Guilty. When negotiations failed, Calum Welch won at trial. After cross examining the responding state trooper and the other driver, Calum raised a successful Motion to Strike the Commonwealth’s Evidence. Calum argued that while there was evidence regarding the other driver’s potentially unlawful behavior, the prosecutor had failed to prove that any of the client’s driving behavior rose to the level of a criminal offense. The Judge agreed and found the client not guilty on the first motion.

Client: M. R.
Charge(s): Two (2) counts of Felony Eluding; Reckless Driving by Speed (150 mph in a 60 mph zone), Reckless Driving – Generally, No Driver’s License, and Operating an Uninspected or Uninsured Vehicle

Summary: Out of state client was charged following a chase that resulted in a multiple-vehicle crash. The client was arrested and initially held without bond. Calum Welch was able to negotiate the client’s release on bond at the first hearing and they were able to return home.

Client: R. P.
Charge(s): Shoplifting

Outcome: Dismissed. Calum Welch negotiated a plea deal in which the prosecutor dismissed the charge in exchange for the client completing the first-time offender program under § 19.2-303.2. After completing the program, the remaining case was dismissed without an adjudication of guilt and client only had to pay court costs.

Client: K. L.
Charge(s): Shoplifting

Client: R. A.
Charge(s): Carrying Concealed Weapon without a Permit

Summary: Client was pulled over for an expired registration sticker. The officer did not initially notice the firearm and then charged client and seized the weapon.

Outcome: Nolle Prosequi (Dropped). Calum Welch informed the prosecutor that the stop was unlawful. The client’s registration sticker had not been expired for more than four months, which is required by statute for any evidence seized during the stop to be admitted at trial. When the case was called for trial, the prosecutor dropped the charge.

Client: M.G.
Charge(s): Failing to Yield for a Funeral Procession

Outcome: Not guilty. After Nick argued that there was no intent by the client to impede the funeral procession, the judge found client not guilty of the charge.

Client: C.F.
Charge(s): Failure to Comply with VASAP (x2)

Outcome: Not guilty on 1 charge, guilty on the other, but no active jail time. After Nick Wright advised his client to take the charges to trial, the judge dismissed one of the charges after ruling that the client was not guilty for an ignition interlock violation.

The judge did find client guilty of the other charge for receiving a subsequent traffic conviction after being ordered to keep the peace and be of good behavior. The client had 11 months and 11 days hanging over his head that the judge could have imposed, but Nick was able to convince the judge to resuspend the entirety of the sentence; therefore, no active time needed to be served.

Client: M.L.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 102/70

Outcome: No active jail time. The judge found the client guilty and imposed 10 days in jail with all 10 days suspended for a period of one year, conditioned on keeping the peace and being of uniform good behavior. Nick helped his client avoid serving an active jail sentence. The judge imposed a $750 fine. The judge did NOT suspend his license.

Client: C.W.
Charge(s): Failure to Comply with VASAP

Summary: Client had been charged with an ignition interlock violation after having recently been found guilty of the same charge previously.

Outcome: 1 weekend in jail. After plea negotiations with the prosecutor, Nick was able to come to an agreement where the client had to serve 4 days in jail, which could be done on the weekend. Despite the prior conviction, Nick was able to limit the amount of active time to one weekend. The remaining 85 days of the sentence was resuspended conditioned upon 1 year of uniform good behavior.

Client: D. A.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed (104/60) and Eluding (Misdemeanor)

Summary: Client D.A. was charged with Reckless Driving, allegedly going 104 miles per hour (mph) in a marked 60 mph zone, and Eluding law enforcement. The client was a full-time, out-of-state college student traveling to the airport to return home on break.

Outcome: No Jail Time. Calum Welch argued the case directly to the Judge. Even though the Commonwealth sought active jail time, Calum argued that the unique circumstances, lack of any prior criminal history, outstanding driving history, and the mitigation proactively completed by the client merited substantial leniency by the Court. The judge agreed and suspended all the active jail time. The client only had to pay a moderate fine and court costs.

Client: Y. W.
Charge(s): Assault & Battery Against Family Member

Summary: Client Y.W. was charged with Assault & Battery Against a Family Member after disciplining their child.

Outcome: Dismissed. Calum Welch negotiated a plea agreement in which client would enter the first-time offender program under Virginia Code § 18.2-57.3. After successfully completing the program, the charges against client were dismissed without an adjudication of guilt.

Client: K.T.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 92/50

Outcome: No active jail time. The judge found the client guilty, imposed 10 days in jail, but suspended all 10 days for a period of one year, conditioned on keeping the peace and being of good behavior. Therefore, Nick was able to help his client avoid serving an active jail sentence. A $500 fine was also imposed.

Client: S.B.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 101/65

Outcome: 1 day in jail. The judge found client guilty of the charge and imposed 90 days in jail with 88 days suspended, giving client 1 day of active jail time. The court imposed a fine of $500 but did not suspend her license. The suspended time was conditioned upon her keeping the peace and being of good behavior for a period of 1 year.

Client: C.P.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 100/70

Outcome: No active jail sentence. The judge found client guilty, imposed 10 days in jail, but suspended all 10 days for a period of one year, conditioned on keeping the peace and being of good behavior. Therefore, Nick was able to prevent his client from serving an active jail sentence. A $750 fine was imposed, and the client’s privilege to drive in Virginia was suspended for 30 days.

Client: J.T.
Charge(s): Failure to Appear

Outcome: No active jail sentence. The judge found client guilty of the show cause but resuspended the entirety of the suspended sentence for the underlying Felony Drug Possession charge (2 years, 11 months).

Client: J.W.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 105/55, Improper Exhaust on Vehicle

Outcome: 1 weekend of jail. The judge found client guilty of the Reckless Driving charge and imposed a jail sentence of 90 days, but suspended 86 days for a period of 1 year, conditioned on client keeping the peace and being of good behavior. This translates to a weekend in jail. The judge imposed a $500 fine and suspended client’s license for 45 days, granting client a restricted driver’s license. The judge dismissed the other charge.

Client: M.B.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 114/70

Outcome: 1 weekend of jail. The judge found client guilty of the charge and imposed a 10-day jail sentence with 6 days suspended for a period of one year, conditioned on client keeping the peace and being of good behavior. This translated into 1 weekend in jail. The court imposed a fine of $1400 and suspended the client’s privilege to drive for client for 90 days.

Client: J. G.
Charges: Reckless Driving by Speed (98 mph in a 70-mph zone) & Reckless by Speed (94 mph in a 70 mph zone)

Summary: Client received multiple charges traveling to and from their duty station for military obligations. Client was unable to appear due to their service obligations.

Outcome: Misdemeanor charges reduced to minor traffic infractions. Calum Welch appeared on the client’s behalf and convinced the judge to reduce the charges from the Reckless Driving misdemeanors to the traffic infractions of Improper Driving and Speeding 15 mph over the posted limit. Calum successfully argued that the client’s lack of prior traffic infractions and the unique mitigating circumstances warranted leniency from the Court. The client avoided serious military proceedings and only had to pay fines and court costs.

Client: B. Y.
Charge(s): Underage Possession of Alcohol

Summary: Client was charged while visiting a friend on a college campus.

Outcome: Dismissed. Calum Welch negotiated an outcome where the prosecutor dismissed the charge. Calum indicated that there were mitigating circumstances and that the client had a lack of any prior criminal history. After completing some community service, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the charges.

Client: K. P.
Charge(s): Underage Possession of Alcohol

Summary: Client was charged when returning from a party off their college campus.

Client: K. R.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed (79 mph in a 35 mph zone)

Summary: Client was a full-time college student driving through the area on Spring Break. Client became lost while following their GPS and was unaware of the change in speed after taking a wrong turn from the interstate.

Outcome: Misdemeanor reduced to a traffic infraction. Calum Welch was able to convince the Judge to reduce the charge from the Reckless Driving misdemeanor to a traffic infraction of Improper Driving. Calum successfully argued that the client’s mitigating circumstances and complete lack of any other traffic or criminal history warranted leniency. After taking the matter under advisement, the Judge reduced the charge and client only had to pay fines and court costs.

Client: C. P.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed (90 mph in a 60 mph zone)

Summary: Client was an out of state resident travelling for a business emergency.

Outcome: Misdemeanor reduced to a traffic infraction. Calum Welch was able to convince the Judge to reduce the charge from the Reckless Driving misdemeanor to a traffic infraction of Improper Driving. Calum successfully argued that the client’s mitigating circumstances and lack of any other traffic or criminal history warranted leniency. The Court agreed to reduce the charge in exchange for the client completing a driver’s improvement course and some community service. The client was able to return home and only had to pay a fine and court costs.

Client: M. G.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed (106 mph in a 70 mph zone)

Summary: Client was an out of state resident travelling for a family vacation. Client was afraid following what they believed to be a potentially dangerous road rage incident and were attempting to distance themselves from the situation.

Outcome: Misdemeanor reduced to a traffic infraction. Calum Welch was able to convince the Judge to reduce the charge from the Reckless Driving misdemeanor to a traffic infraction of Improper Driving. Calum successfully argued that the client’s mitigating circumstances and lack of any other traffic or criminal history warranted leniency. After taking the matter under advisement, the Court reduced the charge. The client was able to return home and only had to pay a fine and court costs.

Client: A. A.
Charge: Speeding (42mph in a 25 mph zone)

Summary: Client was stopped in their personal vehicle and charged with speeding. However, client held a Commercial Driver’s License and a conviction for a moving violation could have effectively put client out of a job.

Outcome: Reduced to non-moving violation. On appeal from the General District Court, Calum Welch convinced the Circuit Court Judge to reduce the charge from the Speeding infraction to Defective Speedometer, a nonmoving, no point violation. Calum successfully argued that the client’s otherwise clean driving record, mitigating circumstances, and the difference between the vehicle they were operating, and their work vehicle merited leniency. The client only had to pay fines and court costs and were able to keep their job and maintain their Commercial Driver’s License.

Client: A.B.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving 95/70, Failure to Carry License

Outcome: The judge reduced the Reckless Driving charge to a non-moving violation of Defective Equipment and imposed a $250 fine. The judge dismissed the other charge.

Client: A.L.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 92/70

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to improper driving and imposed a $200 fine.

Client: B.C.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 94/70

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to Improper Driving and imposed a fine of $350.

Client: B.D.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 86/65

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to Speeding 15 Over and imposed a fine of $120.

Client: C.A.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 76/35

Outcome: The judge found our client guilty and imposed a $500 fine. She avoided jail and a license suspension.

Client: C.D.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 93/65

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to Improper Driving and imposed a $200 fine.

Client: C.N.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 86/60

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to Speeding 19 Over and imposed a fine of $114.

Client: C.N.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 92/70

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to 79/70 and imposed a fine of $120.

Client: C.V.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving – Failing to Yield to a School Bus

Outcome: The judge dismissed the charge.

Client: D.M.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 93/65

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to a Speeding 15 over and imposed a fine of $120.

Client: I.S.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 93/65

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to Improper Driving and imposed a fine of $250.

Client: K.C.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 107/70

Outcome: The judge found the client guilty and imposed a jail sentence of 30 days, but suspended 29 days for a period of one year, conditioned on her keeping the peace and being of good behavior. The court imposed a fine of $300 and suspended her privilege to drive in Virginia for 90 days. She was granted a restricted license during the period of the license suspension.

Client: K.W.
Charge(s): Reckless Driving by Speed 66/35

Outcome: The judge reduced the charge to Defective Equipment, a non-moving violation, and imposed a fine of $100.

Your case matters here

While we’re proud of our case results, that’s not what drives us to work hard every single day. We’re focused on the future. And that means concentrating on winning your case, on your terms. Get the Virginia law firm that gets results. Contact us to learn more about your legal options. Schedule a free case evaluation with one of our experienced Norfolk, Virginia attorneys today.