A. Except as provided in § 18.2-271.1, the judgment of conviction if for a first offense under § 18.2-266 or for a similar offense under any local ordinance, or for a first offense under subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, shall of itself operate to deprive the person so convicted of the privilege to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine, or train in the Commonwealth for a period of one year from the date of such judgment. This suspension period shall be in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.
B. If a person (i) is tried on a process alleging a second offense of violating § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, or any substantially similar local ordinance, or law of any other jurisdiction, within 10 years of a first offense for which the person was convicted, or found guilty in the case of a juvenile, under § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 or any valid local ordinance or any law of any other jurisdiction substantially similar to § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 and (ii) is convicted thereof, such conviction shall of itself operate to deprive the person so convicted of the privilege to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine, or train in the Commonwealth for a period of three years from the date of the judgment of conviction and such person shall have his license revoked as provided in subsection A of § 46.2-391. The court trying such case shall order the surrender of the person's driver's license, to be disposed of in accordance with § 46.2-398, and shall notify such person that his license has been revoked for a period of three years and that the penalty for violating that revocation is as set out in § 46.2-391. This suspension period shall be in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2. Any period of license suspension or revocation imposed pursuant to this section, in any case, shall run consecutively with any period of suspension for failure to permit a blood or breath sample to be taken as required by §§ 18.2-268.1 through 18.2-268.12 or §§ 46.2-341.26:1 through 46.2-341.26:11 or any period of suspension for a previous violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or 46.2-341.24.
C. If a person (i) is tried on a process alleging (a) a felony conviction of § 18.2-266 or (b) a third or subsequent offense of violating § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, or any substantially similar local ordinance, or law of any other jurisdiction, within 10 years of two other offenses for which the person was convicted, or found not innocent in the case of a juvenile, under § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 or any valid local ordinance or any law of any other jurisdiction substantially similar to § 18.2-266 or subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 and (ii) is convicted thereof, such conviction shall of itself operate to deprive the person so convicted of the privilege to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine, or train in the Commonwealth. Such person may, upon good cause shown, be eligible for participation in a program pursuant to § 18.2-271.1 and shall, upon conviction, have his license revoked as provided in subsection B of § 46.2-391. The court trying such case shall order the surrender of the person's driver's license, to be disposed of in accordance with § 46.2-398, and shall notify such person that his license has been revoked indefinitely and that the penalty for violating that revocation is as set out in § 46.2-391.
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the period of license revocation or suspension shall not begin to expire until the person convicted has surrendered his license to the court or to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to, and shall have no effect upon, any disqualification from operating a commercial motor vehicle imposed under the provisions of the Commercial Driver's License Act (§ 46.2-341.1 et seq.).
Code 1950, § 18.1-59; 1960, c. 358; 1962, c. 625; 1964, c. 240; 1972, c. 757; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1982, c. 301; 1983, c. 504; 1984, cc. 623, 673; 1989, c. 705; 1990, c. 949; 1992, cc. 722, 830, 891; 1994, cc. 359, 363; 2000, cc. 956, 982; 2001, c. 739; 2002, c. 873; 2010, c. 521; 2013, cc. 415, 655; 2026, c. 1112.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case:
Corbin v. Commonwealth, 604 S.E.2d 111 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
Corbin v. Commonwealth, 604 S.E.2d 111 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “2-266, Code § 18.2-271 requires that “such conviction shall of itself operate to deprive the person so convicted of the privilege to drive or operate a motor vehicle .”
Lockett v. Commonwealth, 438 S.E.2d 497 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 14× “This appeal challenges the constitutionality of Code §§ 18.2-271 and 18.2-271.1. Russell Lee Lockett contends that he was denied equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when the trial judge, acting pursuant to…”
Snead v. Commonwealth, 437 S.E.2d 239 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “He contends that (1) he was not provided a blood test after his arrest and the Commonwealth failed to prove that the blood test was unavailable, and (2) the trial judge erred by retroactively applying amended Code § 18.2-271(A) which, after the offense date, increased the…”
Wheeling v. City of Roanoke, 341 S.E.2d 389 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Code § 18.2-271 provides that, upon conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants, a defendant’s operator’s license shall be revoked for six months.”
Eric Maurice Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 604 S.E.2d 108 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “” The form was admitted as evidence and complies with the notice requirements of Code § 18.2-271 (B). Upon his conviction, the general district court sent notice of the conviction to the Department of Motor Vehicles *194 (DMV).”
United States v. Knott, 726 F. Supp. 1042 (E.D. Va. 1989).
· cites it 2× “2 (a); see abo Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-271 (Repl.Vol.1988) (providing for mandatory revocation of driver’s license for DWI conviction); Va.”
Commonwealth v. Hastings, 25 Va. Cir. 339 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 5× “The Vermont statutory scheme is distinguishable from Virginia's in several key respects: first, one who pleads guilty to DWI in Virginia automatically has his license suspended for a period of at least six months, Va. Code § 18.2-271 1 , which was apparently not the case *341 in…”
Christopher Lee Croft v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 38× “2-272 as applying beyond the initial one-year period of suspension imposed by Code § 18.2-271. We agree. I. Because the parties are fully conversant with the record in this case and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts and incidents…”
Salama v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. Cir. 446 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 6× “Virginia Code § 18.2-271 recognizes the lack of any distinction between those terms in this context: If a person is (i) tried on a process alleging a second offense of violating § 18.”
Eddie Rivers, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 14× “As relevant here, there are two statutory schemes that address the effects of a conviction for DUI: Code § 18.2-271,4 a criminal statute, and Code § 46.”
Commonwealth v. Wright, 36 Va. Cir. 494 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-271 provides that “this suspension period shall be in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.”
Kennedy v. Comm'r of Virginia Dep't of Motor Vehs., 61 Va. Cir. 294 (2003).
“On June 2, 2001, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter DMV) revoked Kennedy’s license for three years as required by §§ 18.2-271 and 46.2-391 (A). Mr. Kennedy is eligible for full restoration of his driving privileges on May 14, 2004.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-271(A) — 6 cases
Snead v. Commonwealth, 437 S.E.2d 239 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
“He contends that (1) he was not provided a blood test after his arrest and the Commonwealth failed to prove that the blood test was unavailable, and (2) the trial judge erred by retroactively applying amended Code § 18.2-271(A) which, after the offense date, increased the…”
Lockett v. Commonwealth, 438 S.E.2d 497 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
“This appeal challenges the constitutionality of Code §§ 18.2-271 and 18.2-271.1. Russell Lee Lockett contends that he was denied equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when the trial judge, acting pursuant to…”
Christopher Lee Croft v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“2-272 as applying beyond the initial one-year period of suspension imposed by Code § 18.2-271. We agree. I. Because the parties are fully conversant with the record in this case and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts and incidents…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-271(B) — 4 cases
Eric Maurice Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 604 S.E.2d 108 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“” The form was admitted as evidence and complies with the notice requirements of Code § 18.2-271 (B). Upon his conviction, the general district court sent notice of the conviction to the Department of Motor Vehicles *194 (DMV).”
Salama v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. Cir. 446 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998).
“Virginia Code § 18.2-271 recognizes the lack of any distinction between those terms in this context: If a person is (i) tried on a process alleging a second offense of violating § 18.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-271(C) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-271(D) — 1 case
Christopher Lee Croft v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“2-272 as applying beyond the initial one-year period of suspension imposed by Code § 18.2-271. We agree. I. Because the parties are fully conversant with the record in this case and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts and incidents…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-271(E) — 1 case
Lockett v. Commonwealth, 438 S.E.2d 497 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
“This appeal challenges the constitutionality of Code §§ 18.2-271 and 18.2-271.1. Russell Lee Lockett contends that he was denied equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when the trial judge, acting pursuant to…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-271(c) — 1 case
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.