Bibb v. Commonwealth
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Plummer v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1991)
- Aminata Carew v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013)
- Reed v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1992)
- Commonwealth v. Hinkle (Fairfax County Circuit Court 1992)
- Steed v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1990)
- Eddie Rivers, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024)
- Richard Daniel Peters, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2016)
- Steven Lee Hodges v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2015)
- Commonwealth v. Claytor (Augusta County Circuit Court 2013)
- Willie Hampton Moss, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2009)
- Hsiu, Tsau v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2008)
- Hsiu Tsai v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2008)
- Dennis (NMN) Graves v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 1999)
- Rodney Lee Rucker, a/k/a Ronnie L. Rucker v. CW (Va. Ct. App. 1998)
- Douglas Edward Holmes v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1997)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson (Frederick County Circuit Court 1987)
- Pitchford v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1986)
- Luis Manuel Negron v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023)
- United States v. David L. Hamilton, United States of America v. Daniel R. Mirro (4th Cir. 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
David L. Bibb appeals from a conviction of driving while his operator’s license was suspended. Code §§ 46.1-350, -423.1. Bibb attacks his conviction on the ground that he did not know his license had been suspended. The Attorney General agrees that the only question before us “is whether the defendant had notice of the revocation, according to law”.
On July 1, 1969, a representative of the Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles held a hearing, which Bibb attended, to determine whether Bibb’s license should be suspended or revoked. At the conclusion of the hearing, Bibb was advised that he would be given notice of the Commissioner’s decision, as required by Code § 46.1-435. On August 6, 1969, the Commissioner mailed a notice *250 to Bibb, addressed to the last known addtess supplied by him and on file at the Division, advising Bibb that his license had been suspended. Bibb having moved from that address on July 25, the postal authorities returned the notice to the Division, with the envelope unopened and marked “Moved, left no address”.
Code § 46.1-441.2 provides:
“Notice of suspension or revocation of license.—Whenever it. is provided in this title that an operator’s or chauffeur’s license may or shall be suspended or revoked by the Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles, notice of such suspension or revocation or any certified copy of the decision or order of the Commissioner may be sent by the Division by certified mail to the last known address supplied by such operator or chauffeur and on file at the Division, and the certificate of the Commissioner or someone designated by him for that purpose that such notice or copy has been so sent shall be deemed prima facie evidence that such notice or copy has been sent and delivered to such operator or chauffeur for all purposes involving the application of the provisions of this title, including § 46.1-435.”
But the Commonwealth cannot rely on the presumption afforded by the statute because its evidence expressly shows that Bibb did not receive the notice mailed to him. Since the evidence does not show that Bibb knew his license had been suspended, we must sustain his contention. We therefore reverse the conviction and dismiss the warrant.
Reversed and dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.