Personal injury
$730,000
Passenger injury recovery
We recovered $730,000 for a passenger injured when a vehicle turned into oncoming traffic.
Meet our personal injury attorney: Maxie Lawton
Read case detailsReviewed against Virginia sources current as of August 21, 2026. A first DUI charge does not determine the outcome, sentence, or driver’s-license result. The charging document, chemical-test allegations, refusal paperwork, prior record, and court orders must be reviewed together. This page provides general information and does not predict what will happen in a particular case.
This page uses “first offense” as shorthand for a first conviction analyzed under Virginia Code § 18.2-270(A). That label should not be assumed from the wording of a webpage. Whether an earlier Virginia, local, federal, or out-of-state matter counts can depend on the statute, disposition, dates, and court record.
The separate under-21 and commercial-vehicle statutes discussed below are not interchangeable with an ordinary first-offense analysis under § 18.2-270. A refusal charge and an administrative license suspension are also separate from the underlying DUI charge.
Virginia Code § 18.2-266 identifies several ways a person may violate the DUI statute. It addresses a qualifying chemical-test result at or above 0.08, being under the influence of alcohol, impairment by drugs, impairment by a combination of alcohol and drugs, and specified concentrations of certain drugs in the blood.
A result below 0.08 does not answer every impairment allegation. Conversely, a charge or reported test result is not itself a conviction. The warrant or summons and the admissible evidence determine which statutory theory is actually at issue. The broader Hampton Roads DUI overview explains the general statutory framework; this page focuses on first-conviction consequences and process.
| Issue | Current statutory rule |
|---|---|
| Base offense under § 18.2-270(A) | Class 1 misdemeanor with a mandatory minimum fine of $250. |
| Class 1 misdemeanor range | Virginia Code § 18.2-11 authorizes up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500, either or both. Those are maximums, not a forecast. |
| Alcohol level at least 0.15 but not more than 0.20 | Section 18.2-270 adds a five-day mandatory minimum period of confinement. |
| Alcohol level more than 0.20 | Section 18.2-270 adds a 10-day mandatory minimum period of confinement. |
| Passenger age 17 or younger | Section 18.2-270 adds a $500-to-$1,000 fine and a five-day mandatory minimum period of confinement. |
The boundary at exactly 0.20 matters: the five-day provision covers a level “not more than 0.20,” while the 10-day provision applies when the level is more than 0.20. Mandatory minimum punishments under § 18.2-270 are cumulative, subject to the applicable statutory maximum. Other charges or facts may create consequences not summarized in this table.
Virginia Code § 46.2-391.2 provides for an immediate administrative suspension when the section’s testing or refusal, charging, and notice conditions are met. The stated period for a first-offense charge is seven days. The section also allows court review of the suspension.
An administrative suspension is not a finding of guilt and is distinct from the license consequence imposed after a conviction. It is therefore inaccurate to say that every DUI arrest automatically produces the same suspension without checking the statutory conditions and paperwork.
Subject to the provisions it cross-references, Virginia Code § 18.2-271 provides a one-year loss of driving privilege from the date of judgment for a first conviction under § 18.2-266. Eligibility for a restricted permit, its permitted purposes, and any ignition-interlock condition are governed by the applicable statute and the actual court or DMV order.
Virginia Code § 18.2-271.1 generally requires a person convicted under § 18.2-266 to enter and complete a certified alcohol safety action program. The same section includes a good-cause provision under which the court may decline to order participation after an assessment indicates that intervention is not appropriate. It also governs restricted permits and enumerated driving purposes.
Virginia Code § 18.2-270.1 governs ignition interlock. Under the version reviewed, a restricted license for a conviction under the alcohol-related clauses identified in the section, the combined-influence clause, or § 18.2-266.1 carries an interlock restriction for not less than 12 consecutive months without alcohol-related violations. The section treats specified drug-only clauses differently for a first offense. A six-month statement copied from older material is not a safe description of the current DUI rule.
Restricted-driving eligibility should never be promised from a general page. The conviction theory, prior history, court order, VASAP requirements, vehicle ownership or registration, and commercial-driving status may affect the available relief and conditions.
Virginia Code § 18.2-268.2 applies when a person operates a motor vehicle on a Virginia highway and is arrested for a listed offense within three hours of the alleged offense. It generally calls for breath testing for specified alcohol-related provisions, with blood testing if breath testing is unavailable or the person is physically unable to submit. Drug and combined-influence allegations can involve blood testing under separate language in the section.
Virginia Code § 18.2-268.3 separately addresses unreasonable refusal, advisement, procedures, and penalties. A first unreasonable refusal of a required breath test is a civil offense with a one-year suspension; the section separately provides a one-year suspension for a first unreasonable blood-test refusal.
Current § 18.2-268.3 also permits a defendant found guilty of a first refusal and suspended under the specified first-offense provisions to petition for a restricted license. The court may grant a petition for good cause, subject to statutory restrictions and conditions; it may not authorize operation of a commercial motor vehicle. If relief is granted, the section provides for ignition interlock and VASAP conditions. The prior blanket statement that no restricted license is available during a first-refusal suspension is outdated.
The requested test, arrest timing, location of operation, advisement, medical circumstances, prior record, and documents can change the analysis. This page does not advise anyone to take or refuse a test.
Virginia Code § 18.2-266.1 applies to a person younger than 21 who operates after illegally consuming alcohol and specifies a test result of at least 0.02 but below 0.08. The offense is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Its stated punishment includes a one-year license forfeiture and either a mandatory minimum $500 fine or 50 hours of community service.
The section expressly states that the penalty and license-forfeiture provisions in §§ 18.2-270 and 18.2-271 do not apply to a violation of § 18.2-266.1. A result at or above 0.08 or evidence of impairment may implicate a different charge, but it should not be described categorically as “adult penalties plus the underage charge.”
Virginia Code § 46.2-341.24 applies to operation of a commercial motor vehicle. It makes a concentration of at least 0.04 a lesser-included offense under specified provisions; it does not make 0.04 a universal charging threshold whenever a person happens to hold a CDL.
Virginia Code § 46.2-341.18 separately governs commercial disqualification. It generally provides a one-year disqualification for listed first convictions and a three-year period for specified offenses committed while driving a commercial motor vehicle transporting placarded hazardous materials. It also addresses a CDL holder convicted of listed offenses committed while operating a noncommercial vehicle. The precise conviction, vehicle, cargo, and subsection matter.
The Virginia Court System explains that general district courts handle traffic violations and misdemeanor cases. A first charge under § 18.2-266 is generally a misdemeanor matter, but the locality, court, hearing date, and charge shown on the papers control. Other allegations may follow a different path.
The sequence may include an arraignment or advisement, motions, evidence review, plea discussions, and trial. There is no reliable universal promise that a court date will occur within a certain number of weeks or that a particular reduction, dismissal, or diversion-style outcome will be available.
No item on this list establishes a defense or result by itself. What can be obtained, admitted, challenged, or used depends on the case and the applicable rules.
Record consequences should not be summarized as “permanent” without distinguishing a conviction from a charge that did not result in conviction and without checking the law in effect on the relevant date. Under the current petition-sealing statute, Virginia Code § 19.2-392.12 lists convictions under §§ 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, and 18.2-268.3 as ineligible for sealing under that section.
Expungement of a charge that does not result in a conviction is a different question and may depend on the disposition, the record, and the version of the law then in effect. A dismissal, acquittal, reduction, or other disposition should be reviewed before anyone states whether expungement or sealing is available.
Does a first DUI mean there will be no jail? No general page can promise that. A Class 1 misdemeanor authorizes jail, and § 18.2-270 adds mandatory confinement for specified elevated test results and for transporting a passenger age 17 or younger. Other allegations may also matter.
Is the seven-day administrative suspension a conviction? No. It is a separate pretrial license process under § 46.2-391.2. The statute provides a route for court review, and the DUI charge still must be resolved in court.
Can a first refusal affect driving privileges? Yes. A first unreasonable refusal can carry a one-year suspension. Current law also provides a petition process for a restricted license after a first refusal finding, subject to good cause and statutory conditions.
Can a lawyer promise a reduction or dismissal? No. The charge, admissible evidence, prior record, procedural history, and decisions of the parties and court vary. A prior outcome or a list of possible issues does not establish what will happen in another case.
The firm’s published attorney profiles list DUI and serious traffic matters among the practice areas of its co-founders. A case-specific review may address the charging papers, license documents, available evidence, prior record, court process, and questions the client should discuss with counsel. These public facts do not imply a credential, ranking, case volume, or result.
To ask whether the firm is available to review a pending Virginia DUI matter, call 757-777-9285 or use the firm’s contact page. Sending information does not mean the firm has accepted the matter and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential or time-sensitive information until the firm confirms how it should be provided.
This page is general legal information, not legal advice. Reading it or contacting the firm does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship. A Virginia attorney must review the facts, documents, and current law before advising on a particular matter.
Tell us what happened, or call 757-777-9285. We offer a free personal injury consultation.
An inquiry does not create an attorney-client relationship; representation requires our agreement. Please wait for instructions before sending confidential or time-sensitive material.
"*" indicates required fields
1807 S. Church Street, Suite 200C
Smithfield, VA 23430
2 Eaton Street, Suite 900
Hampton, VA 23669
Copyright © 2026 The Phoenix Trial Firm• All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy. Digital Marketing By:
A welcome from our team
Welcome to The Phoenix Trial Firm. We help people across Hampton Roads with personal injury, criminal defense, DUI, and serious traffic matters. Tell us what brought you here, and our team will help you understand your next steps.
Get a Free Consultation Or call 757-777-9285Hampton Roads trial lawyers
We help injured people and those facing criminal, DUI, or serious traffic charges across Hampton Roads.
Offices in Hampton & Smithfield
Your first conversation
Choose the matter you want to discuss. See how to get started and what to have ready for the conversation.

Start with the collision, your questions, and the changes it has brought to your life.
Good to knowYou do not need every document to make your first inquiry.
Start a conversationTell us when and where the collision happened and how to reach you. A short description is enough to begin an inquiry.
Our team reviews your inquiry. The conversation can cover your injuries, treatment, missed work, insurance questions, and possible next steps.
If we agree to represent you, we explain the scope of our work, fees and costs, and the information needed to begin preparing your claim.

A focused first conversation starts with the matter, the court, and your immediate questions.
Good to knowThis guide introduces the firm’s inquiry process; it does not change any court instruction or deadline.
Start a conversationTell us the charge, the locality or court, and any upcoming court date. Include your contact information so our team can review your inquiry.
Have your charging papers and questions ready for the conversation. We can discuss whether Phoenix is available to review your matter and what a consultation would cover.
If we agree to represent you, we explain the scope of the work and the fee arrangement. Preparation then begins around your particular facts and circumstances.

The details on the summons help us understand the matter you want to discuss.
Good to knowFor DUI or DWI inquiries, choose Criminal defense & DUI above. This overview does not determine whether you must appear in court. That question requires a review of your specific matter.
Start a conversationTell us the charge description, locality or court, and date shown on your summons or later court notice. For speed-related matters, note the alleged speed and posted limit.
Our team reviews your inquiry so we can discuss the circumstances and possible next steps. Mention any work-related driving or license concerns you want considered.
If we agree to represent you, we explain the work covered and the fee arrangement. Your case is prepared around its specific charge, evidence, and circumstances.
Our clients. Our work.
We represent people facing injury, criminal charges, and serious traffic matters. Here are seven outcomes from our work.
Personal injury
Passenger injury recovery
We recovered $730,000 for a passenger injured when a vehicle turned into oncoming traffic.
Meet our personal injury attorney: Maxie Lawton
Read case detailsCriminal defense & DUI
DUI: second offense
Not guilty of second-offense DUI. A conviction on the separate refusal charge remained.
Read case detailsCriminal defense
Strangulation — Chesapeake Circuit Court
The strangulation charge was dismissed. The separate domestic assault and battery charge received a first-offender deferred disposition.
Read case detailsCriminal defense
Felony eluding
The Commonwealth chose not to proceed with the felony-eluding prosecution. Driver identification was the central issue.
Read case detailsCriminal defense
Domestic assault and battery
The court dismissed the charge after considering the client’s testimony, injury photographs, and cross-examination.
Read case detailsCriminal defense
Firearm charges · preliminary hearing
Both charges were dismissed at the Norfolk preliminary hearing and were not certified to circuit court.
Read case detailsSerious traffic
Reckless driving
A challenge to the radar evidence led to a granted motion to strike and dismissal of the reckless-driving charge.
Read case detailsPast results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Passenger injury recovery
Our client was a passenger in a vehicle when the driver turned into oncoming traffic. A severe arm injury required emergency surgery.
The vehicle’s policy provided $250,000 in coverage. Phoenix pursued an underinsured motorist claim and stacked multiple policies for an additional $480,000 in coverage.
We recovered $730,000 for our client.
View our case resultsPast results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Second-offense DUI and a separate refusal charge
A stop for failing to obey a highway lane marking led to charges of second-offense DUI and refusal of an official breath test.
The officer reported a slight odor of alcohol and slightly slurred speech. There were no field-sobriety or chemical test results. Phoenix challenged whether the evidence proved DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found the client not guilty of second-offense DUI because the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The client was convicted of the separate refusal charge.
View our case resultsPast results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Chesapeake Circuit Court
Our client faced strangulation and domestic assault and battery charges in Chesapeake Circuit Court following a physical altercation with a partner.
Dante Wright cross-examined the complainant about the reported effects of the altercation. The testimony included no loss of consciousness, no neck marks or bruising, and no hospital treatment or documented neck injury. The defense challenged whether the evidence established the bodily injury required for the strangulation charge and moved to strike.
The court granted the motion to strike and dismissed the strangulation charge. On the separate domestic assault and battery charge, the court found sufficient evidence but granted a first-offender deferred disposition. That charge was not dismissed at this stage.
View our case resultsPast results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Felony eluding
A vehicle registered to our client was clocked at more than 100 mph and crashed near a wooded area after police gave chase. It was empty when the officer arrived. Our client was charged with felony eluding.
The vehicle’s registration and personal items linked it to our client, but the officer had no description identifying him as the driver. Phoenix challenged whether the evidence established who was driving. Our client reported the vehicle stolen that night and said he was elsewhere with a sibling.
The Commonwealth chose not to proceed with the felony-eluding charge, which was resolved by nolle prosequi in circuit court.
View our case resultsPast results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Navy servicemember · Newport News
Our client, a Navy servicemember, faced a domestic assault and battery charge involving her child’s father.
Dante Wright called our client to testify about the incident, introduced photographs showing bruising and redness on her neck and injuries to her face, and cross-examined the complainant.
The Newport News Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court dismissed the charge. Considering our client’s injuries and the absence of evidence of significant injuries to the complainant, the judge could not determine who was the aggressor.
View our case resultsPast results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Norfolk General District Court
Our client faced charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and second-offense carrying a concealed weapon at a preliminary hearing in Norfolk General District Court.
Dante Wright cross-examined the officers about the evidence linking our client to the firearm. Officers found an object resembling a gun holster on our client, but no firearm. The gun was recovered elsewhere outside an apartment complex, away from our client. No link to the client or the holster was established; fingerprint testing was inconclusive, and no DNA evidence connected him to the firearm.
Both charges were dismissed at the preliminary hearing and were not certified to circuit court.
View our case resultsPast results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
A challenge to the radar evidence
Our client faced a reckless-driving charge involving a radar speed measurement.
At trial, the officer could not confirm that the radar had been checked before and after the shift and found accurate. No calibration certificate was presented. Dante Wright moved to strike the evidence.
The court granted the motion to strike and dismissed the reckless-driving charge.
View our case resultsPast results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Answers before your first call
Understand the records to preserve, insurance questions to ask, and how we help injured drivers and passengers.
Read the car-accident guide →Follow the process from investigation and treatment documentation through negotiation and, when appropriate, litigation.
Explore the claim process →Get to know Phoenix
Meet the people behind the firm and learn what to expect when you reach out.
A quick introduction from Dante Wright