A. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person who violates any provision of a protective order issued pursuant to § 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.14, or 16.1-279.1, subsection B of § 20-103, or any judgment, order, or decree entitled to full faith and credit pursuant to subsection F of § 16.1-279.1 when such violation involves a provision of the protective order that prohibits such person from (i) going or remaining upon land, buildings, or premises; (ii) further acts of family abuse; or (iii) committing a criminal offense, or which prohibits contacts by the respondent with the allegedly abused person or family or household members of the allegedly abused person as the court deems appropriate, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The punishment for any person convicted of a second offense of violating a protective order, when the offense is committed within five years of the prior conviction and when either the instant or prior offense was based on an act or threat of violence, shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of 60 days. Any person convicted of a third or subsequent offense of violating a protective order, when the offense is committed within 20 years of the first conviction and when either the instant or one of the prior offenses was based on an act or threat of violence is guilty of a Class 6 felony and the punishment shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of six months. The mandatory minimum terms of confinement prescribed for violations of this section shall be served consecutively with any other sentence.
B. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person who, while knowingly armed with a firearm or other deadly weapon, violates any provision of a protective order with which he has been served issued pursuant to § 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.14, or 16.1-279.1 or subsection B of § 20-103 is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
C. If the respondent commits an assault and battery upon any party protected by the protective order resulting in bodily injury to the party or stalks any party protected by the protective order in violation of § 18.2-60.3, he is guilty of a Class 6 felony. Any person who violates such a protective order by furtively entering the home of any protected party while the party is present, or by entering and remaining in the home of the protected party until the party arrives, is guilty of a Class 6 felony, in addition to any other penalty provided by law.
D. Upon conviction of any offense hereunder for which a mandatory minimum term of confinement is not specified, the person shall be sentenced to a term of confinement and in no case shall the entire term imposed be suspended. Upon conviction, the court shall, in addition to the sentence imposed, enter a protective order pursuant to § 16.1-279.1 for a specified period not exceeding two years from the date of conviction.
E. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the protective order was issued, in any county, city, or town where any act constituting the violation of the protective order occurred, or in the jurisdiction where the party protected by the protective order resided at the time of such violation.
F. Upon a violation of this section, if a Military Protective Order issued by a commanding officer in the Armed Forces of the United States, the Virginia National Guard, or the National Guard of any other state against a person under such officer's command and registered in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) has been issued against the same defendant, the law-enforcement officer or agency shall inform the military law-enforcement officer or agency that entered the Military Protective Order into the NCIC or the commanding officer who issued the Military Protective Order of such violation telephonically, in writing, via email, via text, or by any other routine means of interagency communication.
1987, c. 700; 1988, c. 501; 1991, cc. 534, 715; 1992, c. 886; 1996, c. 866; 2003, c. 219; 2004, cc. 972, 980; 2007, cc. 745, 923; 2012, c. 637; 2013, cc. 761, 774; 2016, cc. 583, 585, 638; 2020, c. 487; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 184, 529; 2024, cc. 108, 118; 2025, cc. 208, 217, 550, 560.
Notes of Decisions
Nolen v. Commonwealth, 673 S.E.2d 920 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 12× “On appeal from his bench trial conviction of felonious violation of Code § 16.1-253.2, Eric Dwayne Nolen contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he inflicted “serious bodily injury.”
Crawford v. Commonwealth, 686 S.E.2d 557 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “See Code § 16.1-253.2 (listing the penalties for violation of a protective order, ranging from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony).”
Curtis Trumaine Calloway v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 746 S.E.2d 72 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “But Code § 16.1-253.2 elevates it to a felony when a person “violates such a protective order by furtively entering the home of any protected party while the party is present.”
Claude Davis v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 778 S.E.2d 557 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “2-26, and one count of violation of a protective order under Code § 16.1-253.2. Appellant argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in denying appellant’s motion to have a Franks hearing; in admitting testimony from the Commonwealth’s rebuttal witness, Michael Rice; and in…”
Hsiu Tsai v. Commonwealth, 659 S.E.2d 594 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “1, a Class 1 misdemeanor in violation of Code § 16.1-253.2. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending the evidence failed to prove that she had notice of the terms of the protective order.”
Elliott v. Com., 675 S.E.2d 178 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to the provisions of Code § 16.1-253.2, which among others establishes the criminal penalties for a violation of a protective order issued under Code § 16.”
Kevin Cody v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 812 S.E.2d 466 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “2, and five counts of misdemeanor violation of a protective order, in violation of Code § 16.1-253.2. The five -8- misdemeanor offenses for violating the protective order resulted from Cody’s five phone calls from jail to Weingarten.”
Osman Osman v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 52× “2, and four counts related to violating the March PPO under Code § 16.1-253.2. Those last four convictions were based on appellant’s violation of the March PPO in the following specified ways: (1) by stalking, (2) by committing assault and battery, (3) by violating the order’s…”
Shaddy Fouad Moumen v. Melanie Jeannette Khoury (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 31× “He challenges the circuit court’s limits on his cross-examination of Khoury, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the circuit court’s contempt finding, and the circuit court’s authority to issue a new protective order under Code § 16.1-253.2. Moumen also asserts that…”
Souter v. Irby (E.D. Va. 2022).
· cites it 19× “In doing so, Jacobs erroneously stated that Plaintiff had violated provisions of Va. Code § 16.1-253.2, a statute unrelated to the issuance of the EPO against Plaintiff.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-253.2(A) — 10 cases
Osman Osman v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
“2, and four counts related to violating the March PPO under Code § 16.1-253.2. Those last four convictions were based on appellant’s violation of the March PPO in the following specified ways: (1) by stalking, (2) by committing assault and battery, (3) by violating the order’s…”
Shaddy Fouad Moumen v. Melanie Jeannette Khoury (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
“He challenges the circuit court’s limits on his cross-examination of Khoury, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the circuit court’s contempt finding, and the circuit court’s authority to issue a new protective order under Code § 16.1-253.2. Moumen also asserts that…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-253.2(B) — 2 cases
Osman Osman v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
“2, and four counts related to violating the March PPO under Code § 16.1-253.2. Those last four convictions were based on appellant’s violation of the March PPO in the following specified ways: (1) by stalking, (2) by committing assault and battery, (3) by violating the order’s…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-253.2(C) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-253.2(D) — 2 cases
Shaddy Fouad Moumen v. Melanie Jeannette Khoury (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
“He challenges the circuit court’s limits on his cross-examination of Khoury, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the circuit court’s contempt finding, and the circuit court’s authority to issue a new protective order under Code § 16.1-253.2. Moumen also asserts that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.