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 detailsLast reviewed August 21, 2026. This page provides general information, not legal advice. Eligibility depends on the complete record and the law in effect when relief is requested.
Virginia law now provides several ways for certain criminal-history and court records to be sealed. Some sealing occurs through an automatic process, while other relief requires a petition in circuit court. These processes are governed principally by Chapter 23.2 of Title 19.2 of the Code of Virginia, which took effect on July 1, 2026.
Record sealing is not the same as erasing a record for every purpose. The correct pathway depends on the charge, the disposition, the offense date, the person’s complete criminal history, and other statutory criteria.
Virginia’s newer record-sealing laws limit public access to eligible records through automatic and petition-based procedures. Traditional expungement remains a separate process under Virginia Code § 19.2-392.2.
It is therefore inaccurate to assume that every dismissal is automatically expunged. A non-conviction may be eligible for automatic sealing, petition-based expungement, both, or neither, depending on the disposition and the statutory requirements. Virginia has also enacted a different version of § 19.2-392.2 that becomes effective December 1, 2026, so the current text should be checked before any petition is filed.
The automatic-sealing rules are divided into several categories. Examples include:
A record may fail to be processed automatically when the available electronic information is incomplete or does not allow the agencies to determine eligibility. The Virginia State Crime Commission’s official sealing FAQs explain that people generally are not notified when an offense is automatically sealed. The Commission identifies several ways to check status, including reviewing the Virginia Judiciary’s online case information, requesting a Virginia criminal-history record, or asking the clerk of the court that resolved the case.
Virginia Code § 19.2-392.12 permits a person to petition for sealing of certain misdemeanor convictions, Class 5 or Class 6 felony convictions, specified larceny felonies, and eligible deferred-and-dismissed charges. The statute contains a detailed list of offenses that cannot be sealed through this section.
A petition under § 19.2-392.12 is filed in the circuit court of the city or county where the case was resolved. The statute provides that no court fees or costs are charged for filing that petition. The Commonwealth is a party to the proceeding and may object. A court may conduct a hearing, although the statute also permits an order without a hearing in a limited circumstance when the Commonwealth does not object and makes the required stipulations.
Among other requirements, the petitioner must satisfy the applicable criminal-history restrictions and a conviction-free waiting period of seven years for a misdemeanor or ten years for a felony, calculated from the latest event identified by the statute. Full payment of any ordered restitution is required. If the record indicates that the offense involved alcohol or another drug, the petitioner must demonstrate rehabilitation. The court must also find that continued existence and possible dissemination of the record causes or may cause a manifest injustice.
A person may receive no more than two granted petitions under § 19.2-392.12 during the person’s lifetime. That limit concerns granted petitions under that section; it is not accurately described as a universal limit of two sealed convictions. Different limits apply to other sealing procedures.
Eligibility cannot be determined from the felony or misdemeanor class alone. Virginia Code § 19.2-392.12 excludes Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 felonies and many specifically identified offenses and circumstances. The exclusions include, among others, categories involving certain violent offenses, sex offenses, firearms, protective orders, hate crimes, and offenses involving a family or household member.
The statute also examines the petitioner’s broader criminal history. It bars relief under § 19.2-392.12 for a person who has ever been convicted of a Class 1 or 2 felony or another felony punishable by life imprisonment, and it imposes separate lookback periods for Class 3 or 4 felonies and other felonies. A complete record review is necessary before drawing any conclusion about eligibility.
Under Virginia Code § 19.2-392.5, sealing generally prohibits public access to covered records held by specified Virginia agencies and courts. In many circumstances, a person whose record has been sealed may deny or decline to disclose the sealed matter to a private employer or a state or local government agency.
The law contains important exceptions. Sealed information may remain available or may still have to be disclosed for specified law-enforcement, court, child-custody, national-security, federally required, licensing, employment-screening, and other statutory purposes. A sealed matter may also be considered in later criminal proceedings.
Sealing does not:
The Virginia State Crime Commission’s record-sealing resource page provides official links to the statutes, FAQs, the statewide court-information system, and Virginia State Police criminal-history requests.
Every record is different, and the presence of an offense on a list does not establish eligibility by itself. To ask whether The Phoenix Trial Firm can review a Virginia sealing or expungement issue, contact the firm and provide the court, case number, charge, disposition, and approximate date for each matter. Do not send sensitive criminal-history documents through an unsecured channel.
Tell us what happened, or call 757-777-9285.
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