782 S.E.2d 604
Va. Ct. App.2016Background
- At 17 appellant was adjudicated delinquent for two acts of possession with intent to distribute imitation cocaine that would have been felonies if committed by an adult; he stipulated he was over 14 at the time.
- On December 31, 2013 police found two operable long guns at appellant’s residence; appellant admitted possession and was charged under Va. Code § 18.2-308.2.
- Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to the firearms charge, preserving challenges to application of § 18.2-308.2’s mandatory minimums, an as-applied Second Amendment challenge, and a vagueness/notice challenge.
- The trial court applied the statute’s mandatory minimum sentencing provisions (citing Carter v. Commonwealth) and imposed two years’ incarceration.
- On appeal appellant argued (1) mandatory minimums do not apply to juvenile delinquency adjudications, (2) the statute is unconstitutional as applied under the Second Amendment, and (3) Carter’s interpretation makes the statute unconstitutionally vague for lack of notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18.2-308.2 mandatory minimums apply when the predicate is a juvenile delinquency adjudication | Appellant: mandatory minimums refer only to prior convictions (adults) because the text does not mention adjudications; delinquency predicates should not trigger mandatory minimums | Commonwealth: statute’s structure and prior precedent (Carter) treat adjudications as within the prohibition and punishment scheme; inclusive language covers juveniles | Court: affirmed Carter; mandatory minimums apply to juveniles adjudicated delinquent under the statute’s parameters |
| Whether § 18.2-308.2(A)(iii) violates the Second Amendment as applied to a non-violent juvenile adjudication | Appellant: temporary ban until age 29 is an unreasonable infringement on the right to keep and bear arms | Commonwealth: ban is closely analogous to the presumptively lawful felon-in-possession prohibition recognized in Heller/McDonald; juvenile adjudication involved felonious conduct | Court: rejected as-applied challenge; restriction is akin to the presumptively valid felon ban and survives application |
| Whether Carter’s interpretation renders § 18.2-308.2 void for vagueness / lack of notice | Appellant: Carter’s extension of mandatory minimums beyond the statutory text deprives individuals of fair notice | Commonwealth: statutory construction and binding precedent provide notice; appellant failed to develop legal authority for the novel constitutional vagueness claim | Court: held vagueness/notice challenge waived for inadequate briefing and rejected the argument insofar as precedent controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 116, 562 S.E.2d 331 (2002) (statute construed to include juvenile delinquency adjudications within its prohibition and punishment scheme)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess arms but lists presumptively lawful prohibitions including felon possession bans)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates the Second Amendment against the states)
- DiGiacinto v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 281 Va. 127, 704 S.E.2d 365 (2011) (Virginia Supreme Court recognizes Article I, § 13 protection coextensive with the Second Amendment)
- Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc., 273 Va. 96, 639 S.E.2d 174 (2007) (statutory interpretation is a pure question of law reviewed de novo)