Dickie Darnell Dickens v City of Danville

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Coleman, Koontz and Willis
Argued at Salem, Virginia
DICKIE DARNELL DICKENS
v. 	Record No. 0382-94-3 	MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
CITY OF DANVILLE 	MAY 9, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE
Kenneth M. Covington, Judge Designate
Glenn L. Berger (Shreve & Berger, on brief),
for appellant.
Robert L. Adams, Jr., Assistant Commonwealth's
Attorney (William H. Fuller, III, Commonwealth's
Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
Dickie Darnell Dickens was charged and convicted of driving
while under the influence of alcohol, pursuant to Danville City
Ordinance § 21-49.3. 	Citing Code § 15.1-132, he contends that
the ordinance was void at the time of his arrest because it
imposed a lesser punishment than that prescribed by general law,
Code § 18.2-270. 	We disagree and affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
Dickens was arrested and charged on August 10, 1993. 	On
that date, Danville City Ordinance § 21-49.3 incorporated by
reference the penalty provided by Code § 18.2-270 effective July
1, 1992. 	Effective July 1, 1993, Code § 18.2-270 was amended to
provide an enhanced penalty for an offense committed while the
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
accused was "transporting a person seventeen years of age or
younger." 	The Danville ordinance was not changed to reflect this
amendment until November 16, 1993. 	Thus, at the time of
Dickens's arrest, the Danville ordinance did not provide for the
July 1, 1993 enhanced penalty.
Dickens was charged and convicted of the simple offense of
driving while under the influence of alcohol. 	Nothing in the
record suggests that at the time of the offense he was
transporting a person seventeen years of age or younger. 	Thus,
the enhanced penalty provided by the July 1, 1993 statutory
amendment did not apply to him.
An accused may challenge only the part of an ordinance that
applies to his case. 	See Sos v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 862,
865, 419 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1992). 	The Danville ordinance, insofar
as it applied to Dickens's case, conformed to corresponding
general law.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.