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 petit-larceny charge cannot be understood from the word “theft” or a dollar amount alone. Start with the section written on the charging document, whether the allegation concerns property taken from a person, and what property and value are alleged. This guide explains the limited statutory distinctions in Virginia Code §§ 18.2-96, 18.2-95, and 18.2-103. It does not decide whether an accusation is true or whether the prosecution can prove it.
Petit larceny and grand larceny are not interchangeable labels. A store-merchandise allegation also requires attention to the actual provision charged. An online threshold summary should not replace review of the complete accusation and current law.
Virginia Code § 18.2-96 describes two branches: larceny from the person of another involving money or something of value below $5; and simple larceny not from the person of another involving goods valued below $1,000, subject to the firearm exception in § 18.2-95. Section 18.2-96 makes petit larceny a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The different branches are why “anything under $1,000 is a misdemeanor” is not a reliable summary. The alleged manner of taking and type of property matter alongside value. These statutes are not a complete explanation of the common-law elements of larceny; this guide does not provide an elements checklist or a test for deciding guilt.
Section 18.2-95 supplies the contrasting grand-larceny branches. Read the rows separately rather than applying one dollar threshold to every allegation.
| Alleged larceny | Petit-larceny branch | Grand-larceny branch |
|---|---|---|
| From the person of another | Value below $5 under § 18.2-96. | Value of $5 or more under § 18.2-95. |
| Simple larceny not from the person of another | Value below $1,000 under § 18.2-96, except the firearm branch. | Value of $1,000 or more under § 18.2-95. |
| Simple larceny of a firearm, not from the person of another | The ordinary below-$1,000 branch does not apply. | Section 18.2-95 applies regardless of the firearm’s value. |
Exactly $1,000 is not below $1,000, and exactly $5 is not below $5. Those arithmetic boundaries do not establish how property must be valued or which facts have been proved. This article does not interpret disputed valuation, combine separate transactions, or classify a particular incident.
Virginia Code § 18.2-11(a) authorizes up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both for a Class 1 misdemeanor conviction. These are statutory ceilings, not an expected sentence or a promise of no jail. The fine ceiling is not a complete estimate of the financial consequences of a case.
A pending charge is not a conviction. Neither a low alleged value nor the description “first offense” supplies an outcome prediction here. This overview does not assess prior-record treatment, alternative dispositions, restitution, or eligibility for any particular resolution.
Look at the code section rather than assuming that an everyday label identifies the entire offense. Section 18.2-103 addresses specified store-merchandise conduct, without authority and with the intent stated in that statute. Its covered acts include concealment or taking possession, price-marking or container changes, and assisting another with the listed conduct. It uses below $1,000 and $1,000-or-more value branches.
Do not assume that leaving a store is always required: § 18.2-103 expressly addresses willful concealment while still on the premises. That does not mean every concealed item proves guilt. The statute’s evidentiary language and its application require separate legal review; this page offers no shortcut for deciding intent, authority, or proof.
Organize records that already exist without editing their contents:
These are organizational categories, not required exhibits or a defense checklist. Do not alter or destroy records, post confidential details publicly, or send sensitive material before counsel confirms an appropriate way to provide it. Ask what is relevant to the actual accusation and current stage of the case.
The useful starting questions are which statute is alleged, which value or property branch is involved, what remains disputed, and what the current court papers require. This guide does not change a court date, authorize missing a hearing, or recommend a plea. A particular case requires individual legal advice.
For the firm’s broader representation overview and questions to ask about availability for the actual charge and court, see criminal defense in Hampton Roads. This informational guide does not promise acceptance of a matter, a fee, or a result.
Source research: October 17, 2026, using the linked official Virginia Code public text. This is a limited statutory overview, not an independent Shepard’s or KeyCite subsequent-treatment check, case-law interpretation, amendment-history analysis, complete elements or defenses analysis, or individual eligibility assessment. Record sealing, immigration, employment, civil claims, and other collateral consequences are outside its scope. General information is not legal advice about a particular matter.
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