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 detailsA Virginia destruction-of-property allegation can involve different misdemeanor or felony classifications. The exact subsection, the alleged conduct, ownership, and the value of or damage to the property matter.
This guide addresses criminal charges under § 18.2-137. It does not resolve a civil property dispute, insurance claim, landlord-tenant disagreement, or injury case, and it does not decide who owns disputed property.
Section 18.2-137 addresses unlawful destruction, defacement, damage, or removal without intent to steal. Its ordinary-property language concerns real or personal property that is not the accused person’s own. The section also identifies particular monuments, memorials, and boundary markers; those specialized categories are not analyzed here.
Subsection A states a Class 3 misdemeanor classification. Subsection B separately addresses a person who is not the owner intentionally causing the injury described in the section. These provisions should not be collapsed into the assumption that every damaged item produces the same charge.
This is a statutory overview, not a judicial definition of intent or a ruling that an event described as an “accident” does or does not satisfy the law. Ownership and what happened require examination of the actual allegation and records.
For the intentional conduct addressed by subsection B, the statute uses the phrase “value of or damage to” the property. It sets two classifications:
Exactly $1,000 falls within the second category. But a dollar amount alone does not establish every part of the offense. The subsection’s intentional-conduct and ownership requirements still matter. Nor should the threshold for B be used to erase A’s separate language and classification.
Read the charging document rather than inferring the subsection from an estimate, a conversation, or the name of the offense. If it lists additional charges or another statute, each requires its own review.
Under § 18.2-11, a Class 3 misdemeanor carries a fine of up to $500. That classification does not authorize jail as its punishment. A Class 1 misdemeanor permits up to twelve months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.
For a Class 6 felony, § 18.2-10(f) provides one to five years’ imprisonment, or, in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, up to twelve months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.
These are basic classification ranges, not a prediction or a complete sentencing calculation. Other applicable sentencing provisions, including suspended-term and probation provisions, require individual review. A fine ceiling is not an all-inclusive payment quote.
Subsection B says the amount of loss may be established through proof of the fair market cost of repair or fair market replacement value. It does not make every number written on an estimate a conclusive result.
For an individual review, separate an existing estimate, an invoice, a payment receipt, and a statement about replacement value. Identify which item each document concerns and what work or replacement it describes. Do not assume those documents are interchangeable or add figures together without understanding what they represent.
This guide does not prescribe an appraisal method, decide which valuation evidence is admissible, or predict how a court will resolve a disputed amount. Preserve the existing records for counsel rather than altering the property or creating a new version of the evidence.
No automatic dismissal right appears in subsection A. Its narrow provision allows the court, in its discretion, to dismiss the charge if the locality or organization that owns or is responsible for maintaining the injured property files a written affidavit stating that it has received full payment for the injury.
That wording does not create a universal private-payoff option. Payment to an individual, an informal agreement, or a receipt alone is not the statutory affidavit-and-court process described there. Do not assume this limited A provision guarantees dismissal of a B charge or any other charge.
This page does not recommend approaching an owner, witness, or complainant to obtain an affidavit or agreement. Any proposed communication or payment should be discussed with counsel, particularly where court orders or contact restrictions may exist.
Subsection B separately states that, upon conviction, the court may order restitution. That is distinct from A’s limited discretionary dismissal provision. The text does not promise that paying an amount will prevent a conviction, eliminate every other consequence, or settle a separate civil dispute.
Keep any existing payment records and later court order with the charging papers. Do not assume that a voluntary payment and compliance with a particular court order are the same question.
Start with the complete charge and court notices. Organize what is already available:
This checklist does not authorize entering a site, contacting witnesses, confronting anyone, repairing an item, or changing or discarding property or records. It is not a test that proves or defeats a charge.
For the firm’s existing inquiry route, see the Hampton Roads criminal-defense page. An inquiry does not establish representation or guarantee acceptance or a result. Arrange an appropriate secure process before sending sensitive, unredacted records.
Source research: October 23, 2026, using the cited current public Virginia Code text. No independent Shepard’s or KeyCite check, court-opinion treatment review, or comprehensive amendment-history analysis was performed. General information only, not advice about an individual case.
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