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 detailsThis resource explains a narrow question: how Virginia Code § 18.2-266.1 describes a distinct under-21 alcohol-and-driving offense, how that section differs at a high level from § 18.2-266, and why age creates separate review paths.
It provides general information only and does not determine which law applies, predict an outcome, or replace review of the source material, charging papers, and individual facts.
“Underage DUI” is reader shorthand here; the exact statute written on the charge matters.
This page does not describe legal services, matter acceptance, fees, credentials, response times, confidentiality, or any promised result.
Current § 18.2-266.1(A) addresses a person younger than 21 who operates a motor vehicle after illegally consuming alcohol.
The subsection also states a chemical-test band beginning at 0.02 and remaining below 0.08.
That language should not be shortened to “any detectable alcohol,” and a number by itself does not identify the charged statute or decide how the facts will be evaluated.
Subsection B classifies a violation as a Class 1 misdemeanor and states an offense-specific disposition.
Its text says punishment shall include license forfeiture for one year from the date of conviction and either a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or a mandatory minimum of 50 hours of community service.
That is a summary of the statute’s general language, not a forecast of any court order.
Subsection B also says the penalties and license-forfeiture provisions in §§ 18.2-270 and 18.2-271 do not apply to a violation of § 18.2-266.1.
The same subsection mentions an Alcohol Safety Action Program, a possible restricted license, and ignition interlock, but this page does not state eligibility, duration, timing, lawful purposes, fees, installation, compliance, or restoration rules.
Those details belong in the separate license, VASAP, restricted-driving, and ignition-interlock resource and depend on the governing sources and actual documents.
Section 18.2-266 is Virginia’s separate general DUI statute and contains alcohol, drug, combined-influence, and specified-concentration theories.
Section 18.2-266.1 should not be treated as simply the general DUI statute with a lower number.
Being younger than 21 does not, by itself, establish which statute was charged.
A charging paper may identify § 18.2-266.1, § 18.2-266, another provision, or more than one allegation, so the written citation and alleged theory should be checked before drawing conclusions.
If the paper identifies § 18.2-266, the broad DUI framework and standard first-offense treatment belong in their dedicated resources.
If it identifies § 18.2-266.1, this resource provides only the narrow statutory and age-path orientation described above.
Drug or prescription allegations, high-BAC treatment, field-sobriety evidence, testing or refusal questions, and stop or body-camera issues remain separate topics.
No comparison here decides whether an allegation is proven or which defense, motion, or result may be available.
This resource uses two neutral review paths: a person who was under 18 and a person who was 18 through 20.
The distinction signals that different procedural sources and papers may require review; it does not state that age alone selects the charge, forum, or result.
For someone under 18, juvenile-specific sources and court papers require separate review.
This page does not state a categorical rule about release, a summons, parent or guardian involvement, forum, confidentiality, diversion, sealing, expungement, disposition, or outcome.
For someone age 18 through 20, juvenile-process statements should not be imported merely because the person was younger than 21.
The relevant age, statute, and process must be identified from the dated records rather than from a marketing label.
Questions about which version of a statute governs a particular event remain case-specific and are not answered here.
A small set of records can help identify the lane without deciding the merits.
These categories orient the review; they do not prove what happened, resolve a statutory version, or predict a result.
This page does not ask visitors to upload records or provide a self-assessment.
Questions outside this page’s narrow job belong in dedicated resources.
Virginia’s official legislative records identify House Bill 561 as Chapter 1112, approved on May 14, 2026, with an effective date of July 1, 2026, and identify it as non-emergency legislation.
This date does not determine which statutory version applies to any particular matter.
This resource does not describe what changed before and after July 1, 2026 or make a retroactivity or savings-clause statement.
The legal propositions in this resource use cited current official Virginia statutory and legislative sources reviewed through September 28, 2026.
No independent Shepard’s or KeyCite subsequent-treatment check was performed, so this resource includes no case-law proposition.
The page remains informational and does not select governing law or provide a case-specific assessment.
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