807 S.E.2d 223
Va. Ct. App.2017Background
- Cartagena attempted to buy a firearm at a Virginia pawn shop and completed both federal and Virginia state forms denying any prior felony conviction; the dealer ran a background check and denied the sale.
- Warrants issued; during a November 2015 traffic stop for those warrants, police found a Ruger .45 in Cartagena’s car; he admitted buying it from a private seller and produced a bill of sale.
- Commonwealth admitted a New York Uniform Sentence and Commitment order showing Cartagena pleaded guilty to an attempted assault offense classified as a felony under New York law; the New York statute in effect at the time classified the offense as a Class D or E felony punishable by up to four years.
- Cartagena moved to strike, arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove his New York conviction qualified as a “felony” for purposes of Virginia law because the court did not receive evidence of New York’s punishment range; trial court denied the motion and convicted him of (1) possession of a firearm by a felon (Code § 18.2-308.2), (2) attempted possession by a felon (Code § 18.2-308.2), and (3) making a materially false statement on the state consent form (Code § 18.2-308.2:2(K)).
- On appeal, Cartagena’s sole contention was insufficient evidence that his New York conviction constituted a felony under Virginia law such that it could serve as the disqualifying prior for the charged offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Cartagena's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an out-of-state conviction must carry a Virginia-equivalent felony punishment (i.e., potential imprisonment ≥1 year) to qualify as a "felony" under Va. Code § 18.2-308.2(A) | The New York conviction cannot serve as a predicate unless its potential punishment meets Virginia’s felony minimum; mere label by another jurisdiction is insufficient | Statute’s plain language covers convictions classified as felonies by other states; proof that the conviction is a felony under that state suffices | Rejected Cartagena’s position. The statute’s plain language covers felonies "under the laws of . . . any other state." The NY felony conviction satisfied the element. |
| Whether denying a prior felony on the Virginia state consent form was a materially false statement under § 18.2-308.2:2(K) when the prior conviction was a felony under another state’s law | The consent question should be interpreted relative to Virginia’s classification/punishment so the NY conviction may not be a felony for this purpose | The consent form and statute are unqualified and encompass felonies as defined by the jurisdiction where convicted; the form’s "Exceptions" explicitly reference the law where the conviction occurred | Held for the Commonwealth. The state form’s language and purpose require disclosure of convictions classified as felonies where convicted; Cartagena’s "no" was materially false. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68 (deferential sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 851 (distinguishable—applies when foreign system does not label offenses as felonies or misdemeanors)
- Lahey v. Johnson, 283 Va. 225 (courts must not rewrite plain statutory language)
- Sarafin v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 320 (use of differing statutory language implies intentional legislative choice)