Frank Castro, s/k/a Frank D. Castro v. CW ( 2000 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
FRANK CASTRO, s/k/a
FRANK D. CASTRO
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0216-99-4 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
JANUARY 11, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Charles H. Duff, Judge Designate
Peter M. Baskin (Pelton, Balland, Young,
Demsky, Baskin & O'Malie, P.C., on brief),
for appellant.
H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Frank D. Castro conditionally pled guilty to a charge of
driving under the influence of alcohol, reserving his right to
appeal the admissibility of the breath analysis certificate. He
contends the trial judge erred in ruling that the police officer's
training to administer the breath test complied with the
requirements of Code § 18.2-268.9. We disagree and affirm the
conviction.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
I.
We addressed the requirements of Code § 18.2-268.9 in
Reynolds v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 153, 515 S.E.2d 808 (1999).
There, we held that an officer who had received forty hours of
training on the Breathalyzer 900-A instrument and an additional
eight hours of training on the Intoxilyzer 5000 met the
requirements of the statute. See id. at 160-62, 515 S.E.2d at
811-13. That holding is dispositive of the issue raised in this
appeal.
The evidence proved that the officer possessed a current
license issued by the Division of Forensic Sciences to operate
breath test equipment. The officer testified that he received
forty hours of training concerning the Breathalyzer 900-A at the
Division of Forensic Sciences during a one-week course in 1996.
In 1998, he completed an additional eight-hour course concerning
the operation of the Intoxilyzer 5000, which is the machine he
used to test Castro.
On cross-examination, the officer testified that the forty
hours of training covered the theory, administration, and
operation of the Breathalyzer 900-A. The training also included
instruction on toxicology, pharmacology, physiology, and the
effects of alcohol on the human body. The eight hours of
additional training the officer received in 1998 related
"predominately [to] usage of the [Intoxilyzer 5000]." The course
- 2 -
included instruction about the parts of the machine, the
procedures to be followed, and the operation of the machine.
In Reynolds, we ruled as follows:
[W]e hold that Code § 18.2-268.9 requires
forty hours of training on "breath test
equipment" in general and does not mandate
the instruction on a particular make or
model. The language of the statute refers
to forty hours of instruction on "the breath
test equipment and the administration of
such tests." Code § 18.2-268.9 (emphasis
added). Contrary to appellant's
interpretation, the statute does not limit
the training program to a particular
machine; rather, it requires training on
"breath test equipment" and the procedures
involving the breath tests. If the
legislature had intended that operators
undergo a forty-hour training program for
each individual type of breath test
equipment, then it would have said so in the
statute.
30 Va. App. at 160, 515 S.E.2d at 811.
We decline Castro's invitation to scrutinize the forty-hour
course established by the Division of Forensic Sciences and to
find that certain isolated topics do not apply to the operation
of breath test equipment or the administration of breath tests.
Nothing in Code § 18.2-268.9 or the administrative regulations
enacted to implement the statute, see 1 Va. Admin. Code
§ 30-50-100, at 99-100 (1996), requires a licensee to take forty
hours of training on each breath test device. Applying the
ruling in Reynolds, we hold that the trial judge did not err in
admitting the results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test.
- 3 -
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 4 -