United States v. ThorntonUnited States v. Thornton
Reversed, vacated, and remanded by published opinion. Judge DUNCAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge KING and Judge SHEDD joined.
OPINION
A jury convicted Michael Ray Thornton of possessing a firearm and body armor in violation of
I.
A grand jury indicted Thornton on March 24, 2005 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of
Thornton appealed, contesting his classification as an armed career criminal. We vacated his sentence and remanded the case in a March 21, 2007 unpublished opinion.
United States v. Thornton,
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on October 18, 2007 and accepted additional briefing from counsel. At the hearing, both parties offered expert evidence on the risks of physical injury, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”) that accompany nonforcible sexual activity between an adult male and a minor female between thirteen and fifteen years old. On January 18, 2008, before the Supreme Court’s decision in
Begay,
the district court issued a memorandum opinion. It held that Thornton’s aggravated sexual battery and attempted rape offenses did not occur on separate occasions and could not count as two separate predicate convictions under the ACCA. The district court also held that statutory rape, as defined by Va.Code § 18.2-63, constituted a violent felony because the risk of STDs and pregnancy created a serious potential risk of physical injury. The court reimposed its original sentence of 204 months for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and 36 months (concurrent) for possession of body armor by a convicted felon. Thornton now appeals the district court’s decision classifying Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense as a violent felony under 18 .U.S.C.
II.
We have jurisdiction over Thornton’s appeal under
Under the ACCA, a violent felony either “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” or is “burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
In arguing that Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense does not fall under the second prong of
Thornton argues that Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense is not sufficiently similar to the enumerated crimes in
The government marshals several arguments in response, which we address separately below. First, the government emphasizes that Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense presents a significant risk of bodily injury and should therefore be classified as a violent felony. To support this contention, the government devotes much of its brief to the expert testimony presented on the risks of STDs and pregnancy associated with sexual activity between an adult male and female minor. The government also relies heavily on circuit court cases finding that offenses involving adult-minor sexual activity carry a serious risk of physical injury. Second, based on its expert’s testimony and supporting case law, the government contends that that Virginia’s statutory rape offense is “roughly similar in kind” to crimes like arson and burglary “because the most common attribute of the enumerated offenses [of section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)] ... is that all of these offenses create significant risks of bodily injury or confrontation that might result in bodily injury.” Resp’t Br. at 20. Lastly, the government argues that the carnal knowledge offense involves “constructive force” because the victim is unable to give legal consent. The government contends that the presence of constructive force, as well as the fact that “[s]ex acts are by nature purposeful and deliberate acts,” brings the carnal knowledge offense under the ACCA’s definition of a violent felony. Resp’t Br. at 47.
Although not without weight, the government’s arguments are unavailing in light of
Begay
for several reasons. First, the government’s emphasis on the risks of physical injury associated with adult-minor sexual activity ignores the Supreme Court’s reasoning in
Begay,
which rejected the notion that section 924(e)(2)(B)’s second prong covers
“every
crime that ‘presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.’ ”
Second, in addressing whether Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense is similar to the exemplar crimes, the government’s analysis effectively collapses this inquiry into its exhaustive analysis of whether the offense involves a serious risk of injury. Citing
James v. United States,
In light of Begay, the government’s position largely depends on its contention that Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense is sufficiently similar to the enumerated crimes because the offense involves constructive force, which a court may infer because the minor victim lacks capacity to give legal consent. This argument, however, conflates the presence of force and the minor’s inability to consent, and thereby attempts to shoehorn the carnal knowledge offense into the definition of a violent felony. This ignores the Virginia Criminal Code’s distinction between forcible and nonforcible sexual offenses. Compare Va. Code § 18.2-61 (classifying forcible rape as a felony punishable by a minimum of five years up to a maximum of life in prison, with a minimum of 25 years in the presence of certain aggravating factors) with Va.Code § 18.2-63 (classifying non-foreible carnal knowledge of a minor as a Class 4 felony, punishable under Va.Code § 18.2 — 10(d) by a minimum of two years up to a maximum of ten years in prison). Although the government correctly points out that under Virginia law a minor victim cannot give legal consent to sexual activity, the victim’s inability to consent does not erase the Code’s distinction between forcible and nonforcible sexual offenses. The Code’s structure shows that the Virginia General Assembly considers forcible and nonforcible sexual offenses to present different risks that are punishable in different ways. Although Virginia’s forcible sexual offenses may qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA, the government cannot persuasively argue that the nonfor-cible carnal knowledge offense constitutes a violent felony by conflating it with Virginia’s forcible sexual offenses through the concept of constructive force.
Nor can the government successfully argue, as it highlighted during oral argument, that Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense is inherently purposeful, violent and aggressive like the enumerated crimes because the minor victim cannot give legal consent. The government argues that the carnal knowledge offense constitutes a violent felony because “[s]ex acts are by nature purposeful and deliberate acts.” Resp’t Br. at 47. The deliberation necessary to engage in adult-minor sexual activity, however, is not sufficient to bring the carnal knowledge offense within the definition of a violent felony. A qualifying offense must also be “violent” and “aggressive,” like the enumerated crimes.
See United States v. Herrick,
Although nonforcible adult-minor sexual activity can present grave physical risks to minors, and although states are entitled to criminalize nonforcible adult-minor sexual activity to protect minor victims from these risks, such risks are not sufficiently “similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed to the examples” of burglary, arson, extortion, and crimes involving explosives.
In contrast, Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense, like the DUI offense in
Begay,
differs from “violent and aggressive crimes committed intentionally such as arson, burglary, extortion, or crimes involving the use of explosives.”
Begay,
IV.
Under Begay, Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense is not sufficiently similar to the enumerated crimes in kind or in degree of risk to constitute a violent felony. We reverse the district court’s opinion, vacate Thornton’s sentence, and remand for sentencing consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED.
Notes
. Thornton received a sentence of 204 months for the firearm possession count and 36 months (concurrent) for the body armor possession count. Under
. Thornton was convicted of statutory rape in August 1986 under Va.Code § 18.2-63. Under this statute, a person is guilty of statutory rape if he “carnally knows, without the use of force, a child thirteen years of age or older but under fifteen years of age.”
. The ACCA defines a violent felony as follows:
(B) [T]he term "violent felony” means any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... that—
(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another....
. We nevertheless consider
Begay
in evaluating Thornton’s direct appeal of his conviction because “[w]hen a decision of the Supreme Court results in a new rule, that rule applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review.”
United States v. Morris,
. The
Begay
Court noted that New Mexico’s DUI offense did not "fall within the scope” of the first prong,
.
Williams
is distinguishable from this case. The First Circuit relied heavily on the fact that third-party clients could endanger the minor victim- — “the violence often will be carried out by third parties’’ — and that the defendant can easily foresee the risk of violence to the minor.