Opinion ID: 3049587
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: At the time the act was committed, the person

Text: committing the act had the present ability to apply physical force on the person of another. CALJIC 9.00 (2006).4 Each of these elements specifically discusses the application of actual or attempted physical force on the victim. Assault with intent to commit rape therefore requires at least the attempted application of some physical force.5 4 These instructions track Cal. Penal Code § 240, which defines “assault” as “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” Bolanos was not charged with violating § 240, but, as noted above, § 220 incorporates the elements of assault. 5 Caselaw similarly focuses on the defendant’s intent to apply force, holding that assault with intent to commit rape is complete once the defendant “intends to use whatever force may be required” to commit the sexual act against the will of the victim. People v. Maury, 68 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2003); accord People v. Elam, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185 (Ct. App. 2001). 9402 UNITED STATES v. BOLANOS-HERNANDEZ Further, the force appears to be in addition to that required to complete intercourse or penetration. We have located no case in which a defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape without conduct involving the application of force above and beyond the force inherent to the threatened act of penetration. For example, in People v. Davis, 896 P.2d 119 (Cal. 1995), the California Supreme Court held that there was sufficient evidence the defendant had committed assault with intent to commit rape where the victim testified that he prevented her from opening the car door to leave, and he aggressively fondled her breasts and crotch over her protests. Id. at 142-43. Similarly, in People v. Bradley, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 276 (Ct. App. 1993), overruled on other grounds in People v. Rayford, 884 P.2d 1369, 1381 (Cal. 1994), the Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence of assault with intent to commit rape where the defendant grabbed the victim’s arm, forced her to hang up the phone, and led her by the arm to a secluded area. Id. at 283; cf. James v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 1586, 1597 (2007) (holding that courts should examine the ordinary case, rather than theoretical possibilities, when evaluating whether a crime presented a serious potential risk of injury under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 127 S. Ct. 815, 822 (2007) (“[T]o find that a state statute creates a crime outside the generic definition of a listed crime . . . requires a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime.”).6 6 Bolanos argues that his crime is not a categorical crime of violence because one can violate California’s forcible rape statute, California Penal Code § 261(a)(2), by accomplishing sexual intercourse through “fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury.” Therefore, the California statute defining assault with intent to commit rape criminalizes conduct that would not constitute force. See People v. Iniguez, 872 P.2d 1183, 1188 (Cal. 1994) (holding that fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury may be shown either by demonstrating a genuine and objectively reasonable fear of harm or by demonstrating an “unreasonable fear . . . if the accused knowingly takes advantage of that fear in order to accomplish sexual intercourse” (internal quotation marks omitted)); People v. St. UNITED STATES v. BOLANOS-HERNANDEZ 9403 [5] Thus, because California caselaw suggests that the ordinary conviction for violating California Penal Code §§ 220 and 261(a)(2) will involve the application or threat of force, extrinsic to the force required for penetration, and because the essential crime is an attempted rape, we hold that assault with intent to commit rape is a forcible sex offense. II. The District Court Made No Improper Findings of Fact. Bolanos argues that the district court found that he was removed subsequent to a prior conviction, extending its judicial factfinding “beyond the conclusive judicial record of a prior conviction,” even though Shepard, 544 U.S. 13, merely authorized the district court to find the fact of the prior conviction. He contends that such additional factfinding raises a constitutional question, and the court should avoid the constitutional question by limiting Bolanos’ maximum sentence to two years under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Bolanos also contends that the additional factfinding violated his rights to due process and to notice and a jury trial. Finally, he argues that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), is Andrew, 161 Cal. Rptr. 634, 644 (Ct. App. 1980) (discussing the preceding possibility where the alleged rape took place in a mental institution, the complainant was a patient, and the defendant was one of her caretakers). We are unmoved by Bolanos’ argument because, as discussed above, Bolanos was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. He identifies no case that would breathe life into his hypothetical scenario in which a California court would convict a defendant of committing an assault with intent to commit rape by means of instilling an unreasonable fear in the victim. Cf. Duenas-Alvarez, 127 S. Ct. at 822 (the defendant “must at least point to his own case or other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the statute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he argues”). Indeed, despite the courts’ language in Iniguez and St. Andrew, we have found no case in which a defendant has been successfully convicted of rape under § 261(a)(2) without a finding that he used or threatened force. Cf. St. Andrew, 161 Cal. Rptr. at 645 (reversing conviction). 9404 UNITED STATES v. BOLANOS-HERNANDEZ invalid; thus, he was entitled to a jury determination of the fact of his prior conviction. [6] Bolanos’ argument with respect to the validity of Almendarez-Torres is foreclosed by our precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that we are bound to follow AlmendarezTorres until the Supreme Court expressly overrules it), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2097 (2007). Further, we reject Bolanos’ contentions that the district court improperly conducted additional factfinding by finding that Bolanos had been deported subsequent to the conviction. The record reveals that, during the plea proceeding, Bolanos himself admitted that he had been deported to El Salvador on October 9, 2002. He further admitted that he had reentered the United States without first receiving permission from the United States to do so. The district court thus found no facts beyond the fact of the prior conviction. Bolanos’ Shepard- and Almendarez-Torres-based arguments are unfounded.