COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Frank and Beales
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
WILLIAM DOUGLAS MEIEROTTO
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 0645-06-1 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
JUNE 12, 2007
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Glen A. Tyler, Judge
Jon C. Poulson (Poulson, Northam & Lewis, PLC, on briefs), for
appellant.
Jonathan M. Larcomb, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F.
McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
William Douglas Meierotto, appellant, was convicted, in a bench trial, of operating a
motor vehicle without a valid Virginia operator’s license, in violation of Code § 46.2-300. On
appeal, he contends that since he had a valid Oregon commercial driver’s license, he was duly
licensed to operate a non-commercial vehicle in Virginia. For the reasons stated, we agree with
appellant and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
BACKGROUND
The facts are not in controversy. Appellant, at the time of the traffic offense, was a
domiciliary of Oregon, possessing a valid Oregon commercial driver’s license (CDL). His
personal, non-commercial motor vehicle is licensed in Oregon. At the time of the offense, and
for three years prior, appellant worked on a construction project in the town of Cape Charles,
Virginia. Appellant has been residing in Virginia during that time. On August 18, 2005,
appellant received a summons in Northampton County for operating his non-commercial vehicle
without a valid Virginia operator’s license.
While acknowledging that appellant was a domiciliary of Oregon, the trial court found
appellant to be a resident of Virginia for purposes of Code § 46.2-300. The trial court did opine
that appellant’s Oregon CDL authorized appellant to drive a commercial vehicle in Virginia, but
not a non-commercial vehicle. The trial court found that, as a resident of Virginia, appellant was
required to have a Virginia operator’s license to drive a non-commercial vehicle in Virginia. The
trial court pointed out that appellant’s only options under this ruling were to either “relinquish
his Oregon domicile or license,” or “drive only commercial vehicles, while on commercial
business, in Virginia.”
This appeal follows.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues his valid Oregon CDL allows him not only to operate a commercial
vehicle in Virginia,1 which the Commonwealth does not contest, but also to operate a
non-commercial vehicle. Essentially, he argues Code § 46.2-300 does not apply to one who
holds a valid out-of-state CDL.
Our analysis focuses on the relationship between Virginia’s Commercial Driver’s License
Act, Code §§ 46.2-341.1 through 46.2-341.34, and Code § 46.2-300. In construing these
statutes, we recognize that the various requirements of the Virginia CDL Act “manifestly create
a regulated scheme which places holders of commercial driver’s licenses in a class separate from
persons who hold regular driver’s licenses.” Lockett v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 488, 493,
438 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1993).
1
Code § 46.2-341.8 allows a domiciliary of another state, possessing a valid CDL issued
by that state, to operate a commercial vehicle in Virginia without licensure in the
Commonwealth.
-2-
Code § 46.2-341.3 of the Virginia CDL Act provides, in part:
This article is intended to supplement, not supplant, the laws of the
Commonwealth relating to drivers, driver licensing, vehicles and
vehicle operations, which laws shall continue to apply to persons
required to be licensed pursuant to this article, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise. To the extent that any provisions of
this article conflict with such other laws of the Commonwealth, the
provisions of this article shall prevail. Where this article is silent,
such other laws shall apply.
Thus, while Virginia’s CDL Act is intended to supplement, not supplant, other laws of
the Commonwealth, the CDL Act prevails over those other laws if there is a conflict. We must
therefore determine if there is such a conflict.
Closely related statutes must be read as being consistent with one another. See Zamani v.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 59, 63, 492 S.E.2d 854, 856 (1997) (“[T]wo statutes which are
closely interrelated must be read and construed together and effect given to all of their
provisions.”), aff’d, 256 Va. 391, 507 S.E.2d 608 (1998). Statutes should be construed, if
possible, so as to harmonize, and force and effect should be given the provisions of each. Lillard
v. Fairfax County Airport Auth., 208 Va. 8, 13, 155 S.E.2d 338, 342 (1967).
“‘[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always preferred to any
curious, narrow or strained construction; a statute should never be construed so that it leads to
absurd results.’” Newton v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 86, 89, 462 S.E.2d 117, 119 (1995)
(quoting Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 836, 839, 419 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1992)).
Code § 46.2-300 requires every person, except those exempted in Code §§ 46.2-303 to
46.2-308, to obtain an operator’s license. The only two exemption statutes relevant to this
analysis are Code §§ 46.2-307(A) and 46.2-308. Code § 46.2-307(A) exempts non-residents
duly licensed in another state, and Code § 46.2-308 exempts a resident, for the first sixty days of
residence, who is duly licensed in another state.
-3-
Code § 46.2-100 defines “non-resident” as a non-domiciliary, with three exceptions,
subsection (iii) being the only relevant exception under the facts of this case. Subsection (iii)
excepts:
a person, other than a nonresident student as defined in this
section, who has actually resided in the Commonwealth for a
period of six months, whether employed or not, or who has
registered a motor vehicle, listing an address in the Commonwealth
in the application for registration shall be deemed a resident for the
purposes of this title, except for the purposes of the Virginia
Commercial Driver’s License Act (§ 46.2-341.1 et seq.).
Under the Virginia CDL Act, only a domiciliary of the Commonwealth can obtain a CDL
issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Code § 46.2-341.9.2 Thus, a non-domiciliary who has
resided in the Commonwealth for a period of six months, while considered a “resident” for the
purposes of Code § 46.2-300, remains ineligible for a Virginia CDL. By its own terms, this
exception does not impute domiciliary status to CDL holders. Reading the Virginia CDL Act
and Code § 46.2-300 together, it is clear that, while appellant could qualify for a Virginia
operator’s license, he could not apply for a Virginia CDL.
Appellant also could not maintain both his Oregon CDL and a Virginia operator’s
license. Code § 46.2-341.6 provides that “[n]o person who drives a commercial motor vehicle
shall have more than one driver’s license.” That statute is not limited solely to holders of a
Virginia CDL; the language notably refers to all those who drive a commercial motor vehicle in
the Commonwealth.3 Code § 46.2-341.6 plainly precludes the holder of a CDL, issued by any
state, from also holding an operator’s license under Code § 46.2-300.
2
Code § 46.2-341.9 does provide an exception for “any person domiciled in a jurisdiction
outside the United States, but [who] has resided in the Commonwealth for a period of six
weeks.” It is important to note that the legislature chose not to except those who are domiciled
in another state, but residing in the Commonwealth. Clearly, the legislature contemplated that
one in such a position, as appellant is, would obtain a CDL from their state of domicile.
3
This is consistent with the purpose of the Virginia CDL Act, which is stated in Code
§ 46.2-341.2. That code section provides, in part:
-4-
The Commonwealth, at oral argument, conceded that a holder of a valid CDL issued by
the Commonwealth entitles the holder to drive a non-commercial vehicle in the Commonwealth.4
We see no principled reason why the same analysis should not apply to an out-of-state CDL.
The Commonwealth’s argument produces an absurd result. Under Code §§ 46.2-341.6
and 46.2-488, in order for appellant to obtain an operator’s license, pursuant to Code § 46.2-300,
to drive a non-commercial vehicle, he would have to surrender his Oregon CDL.5 This would
deprive appellant of his ability to drive a commercial vehicle, as he remains a “non-resident”
under the Virginia CDL Act and is precluded from obtaining a Virginia CDL. In the alternative,
according to the Commonwealth, appellant would have to abandon his Oregon domicile and
become a domiciliary of Virginia in order to obtain a Virginia CDL. Only then could he drive a
non-commercial vehicle with a CDL.
“We cannot assume that the General Assembly intended to enact two contradictory
statutes. Rather, we conclude that it intended the two statutes to serve different functions in
furtherance of a common goal.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 682, 683, 232 S.E.2d 741,
742 (1977). To interpret Code § 46.2-300 to require a holder of a valid out-of-state CDL to
obtain an operator’s license in order to operate a non-commercial vehicle in Virginia is contrary
It is intended that the adoption of this Act, in conjunction with the
adoption of similar legislation in all other states, will improve the
safety of commercial motor vehicle operations in Virginia and in
the United States by (i) permitting commercial drivers to hold only
one driver’s license and to have only one driving record . . . .
4
While there are no statutes or regulations to directly support this conclusion, it is clear
that, in limiting a holder of a CDL to one license, the legislature intended for a CDL to entitle the
holder to drive a non-commercial vehicle as well. Any contrary interpretation would bar the
holder of a CDL from driving non-commercial vehicles.
5
Code § 46.2-341.9 provides, “[n]o person shall be eligible for a Virginia commercial
driver’s license until he surrenders all other driver’s licenses issued to him by any state.” Code
§ 46.2-488 applies the same proscription to those applying for an operator’s license for a
non-commercial vehicle, requiring “the surrender of [any out-of-state] license prior to the
granting of such application.”
-5-
to the rules of statutory construction. The law does not require more of one who holds an
out-of-state CDL than it does of one who holds a Virginia CDL.6
We conclude Code § 46.2-300 conflicts with the Virginia CDL Act. Under Code
§ 46.2-341.3, the Virginia CDL Act prevails where there is a conflict with another law of the
Commonwealth. The legislature intended for those domiciled in other states within the United
States to obtain their CDL from those states, though they may reside within the Commonwealth.
Code § 46.2-341.9. Virginia recognizes a CDL issued by another state as entitling the holder to
drive commercial motor vehicles within the Commonwealth. Code § 46.2-341.8. The
legislature has prohibited any driver of a commercial motor vehicle, including those licensed by
other states, from having more than one driver’s license. Code § 46.2-341.9.
Thus, from these provisions of the Virginia CDL Act, which supersedes the contradictory
provision found in Code § 46.2-300, we conclude that a domiciliary of another state, while
residing in the Commonwealth, can use his CDL, issued by that state, to drive non-commercial
vehicles in the Commonwealth. This position is consistent with the legislature’s intent that the
holder of a CDL stands “in a class separate from persons who hold regular driver’s licenses.”
Lockett, 17 Va. App. at 493, 438 S.E.2d at 499.
CONCLUSION
A holder of a valid, out-of-state CDL, who resides in the Commonwealth but maintains a
domicile in the state that issued his CDL, is entitled to drive non-commercial vehicles in the
Commonwealth without obtaining a Virginia operator’s license under Code § 46.2-300. Thus,
6
That is contrary to the stated purpose of the Virginia CDL Act, which was enacted as
“part of a comprehensive nationwide governmental effort to improve the safety of commercial
motor vehicle operations.” Lockett, 17 Va. App. at 492, 438 S.E.2d at 499. When the legislature
enacted these statutes, it contemplated “similar legislation in all other states.” Code
§ 46.2-341.2.
-6-
we reverse appellant’s conviction for driving without a Virginia operator’s license and dismiss
the charge against him.
Reversed and dismissed.
-7-