Court Opinion

ID: 9635970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:11:15.384642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:27.363621
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
PUBLISHED

            Present: Judges Ortiz, Chaney and Senior Judge Haley
            Argued by videoconference

            DARREN THORNTON, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS
             DARREN LAMAR THORNTON
                                                                                   OPINION BY
            v.     Record No. 0652-22-2                                     JUDGE VERNIDA R. CHANEY
                                                                                AUGUST 22, 2023
            COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                             FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
                                           David E. Johnson, Judge

                           Susan E. Allen (The Law Office of Susan E. Allen, Attorney at Law,
                           PLLC, on brief), for appellant.

                           Mason D. Williams, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
                           Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                   Darren Thornton appeals his felony conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

            Thornton contends that the trial court erred in finding that he (i) completed the required element

            of “a substantial act in furtherance” of an offer for prostitution and (ii) solicited prostitution from

            a minor. For the following reasons, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

                                                      BACKGROUND

                   “In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, we state the facts ‘in the light

            most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.’” Aley v. Commonwealth,

            75 Va. App. 54, 57 (2022) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)).

                   On November 19, 2020, Thornton responded to an online advertisement for sexual

            services by a “female escort” called “Emma.” The ad stated that Emma was 19 years old. The

            ad included a menu of sexual services and indicated that “[g]irlfriend experience (GFE)” was
available for an extra fee. The ad also stated, “LOLLIPOPS and candy canes . . . , ill b ur sweet

bb girl.”

        At 3:45 p.m., Thornton initiated a conversation with “Emma” by sending a text message

to her advertised phone number. After “Emma” texted in response that she was available and

located in an apartment in South Richmond, Thornton replied, “I can be there around 5:30.”

When asked, “what are you looking for so I can give you the price,” Thornton answered, “GFE

hour.”1 “Emma” responded with a price of $80, including fellatio. Thornton then inquired,

“You smoke?” “Emma” responded, “I do. [B]ring me some and I’ll take some $ off.” Thornton

replied, “Okay I will bring some.”

        At 4:02 p.m., “Emma” sent Thornton a text message asking, “Can you bring me a beer?

I’m too young to buy it.” Then “Emma” and Thornton exchanged the following text messages

about “Emma’s” age:

               Emma:          I’m almost 18 and can’t buy it.

               Thornton:      You not 18?

               Emma:          [A]lmost am, I will be soon.

               Thornton:      What is soon?

               Emma:          February.

               Thornton:      I will need a pic!!! I don’t do under 18.

               Emma:          I mean I get what you’re saying, but it’s just
                              between us.

               Thornton:      How did you get an apartment under 18?
                              Your ad says 19.

        1
         Most of the text messages quoted in this opinion are quoted from the trial transcript and
do not include many of the abbreviations shown in the “chat log” in Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2.
                                              -2-
               Emma:           I stay at a friend’s place who is out of town
                               working. The site doesn’t allow ads younger.

After this discussion and some sexual banter, “Emma” texted, “[Y]ou coming or what? I’m free

right now.” Thornton replied, “Okay I will come through to check you out.” A couple of

minutes later, “Emma” texted that she would provide her address if Thornton was really coming.

Thornton replied, “I am coming.” Then “Emma” asked whether Thornton wanted to have sex

without using a condom—one of her advertised services. Thornton replied that he would bring

condoms. Then “Emma” provided her address, and they agreed to meet around 5:30 p.m.

       At 4:16 p.m., “Emma” texted Thornton an address on Meadowdale Boulevard in

Chesterfield County. Thornton replied that he would “stop by the store and stuff” and “should

be there by 5:30.” Thornton added, “I am serious about coming with weed and beer too[.] It

takes a little time.” At 4:49 p.m., Thornton texted, “[O]n the way, should be there in 20

minutes.” At 5:15 p.m., Thornton texted, “Here.” A few seconds later, “Emma” responded,

“[C]ome to the door, I’m ready for you.”

       After Thornton parked and texted “Emma” that he had arrived at her address, the police

blocked his car with police vehicles to prevent him from leaving. The police arrested and

searched Thornton after he stepped out of his car. Thornton was holding a beer in a brown paper

bag. Thornton also had over $160 in cash, a cell phone, several condoms, cigarettes, and a pouch

containing a leafy green substance.

       Unbeknownst to Thornton, his text communications with “Emma” were actually with

Detective Joanna Hartsook, who was posing as an underage minor prostitute in a sting operation

with the Chesterfield County Police Department’s Special Victims Unit and Vice and Narcotics

Section. Detective Hartsook initiated the sting operation by placing “Emma’s” ad on a known

prostitution website. The detective testified that “BB girl,” as used in the online ad, is slang for

“baby girl” and the word “LOLLIPOPS” in capital letters identified “Emma” as a minor. The
                                                -3-
detective also explained that “Girlfriend experience” or “GFE” is “a transactional sex act

between two people that includes kissing or cuddling.”

       After Thornton was advised of his Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), rights, he

agreed to speak with Detectives Frazier and Kay. Thornton admitted sending text messages to

“Emma,” but he claimed that he was acting as a counselor for troubled young women. Thornton

contended that his reason for meeting such young women was to try to convince them not to

participate in “human trafficking.” Thornton claimed that he engaged in “sexual talk” with such

women to connect with them and keep them interested in meeting with him. Thornton told the

detectives that he should not have continued to “Emma’s” location when he became aware that

she was 17 years old. Although Thornton claimed that he only intended to get to know “Emma,”

he also said that he was open to developing a sexual relationship with her.

       At the close of the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Thornton moved to strike the

evidence due to the Commonwealth’s alleged failure to prove that he committed any substantial

act in furtherance of an offer of money in exchange for sex. The trial court initially took

Thornton’s motion to strike under advisement. Thornton presented no evidence and renewed his

motion to strike. The trial court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the requisite

“substantial act in furtherance” and denied the renewed motion to strike. Following closing

arguments, the trial court pronounced that Thornton was guilty as charged of solicitation of

prostitution from a minor, age 16 or older, in violation of Code § 18.2-346.

       Thornton moved the trial court to reconsider and vacate its finding of guilt because the

evidence allegedly failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thornton (1) did a substantial

act in furtherance of an offer of money in exchange for sex and (2) solicited prostitution from a

minor. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Thornton’s motion to reconsider. The trial

                                               -4-
court sentenced Thornton to incarceration for five years, with all five years suspended. This

appeal followed.

                                            ANALYSIS

                                       A. Standard of Review

       Thornton contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for

solicitation of a minor in violation of former Code § 18.2-346(B) because the evidence is

insufficient to support the trial court’s findings that he (1) committed a substantial act in

furtherance of an offer of money for sex and (2) solicited prostitution from a minor.2 On

appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, this Court

“reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party at

trial, and considers all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence.” Commonwealth v. Herring,

288 Va. 59, 66 (2014) (quoting Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68, 72 (2014)). At issue on

appeal is “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021) (quoting Sullivan

v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)). The circuit court’s judgment will be affirmed

“unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Sarka v. Commonwealth, 73

Va. App. 56, 62 (2021) (quoting Austin v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 60, 65 (2012)); see also

Code § 8.01-680.

       To the extent that our sufficiency analysis involves issues of statutory construction, our

appellate review is de novo. See Miller v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 527, 537 (2015). As a

penal statute, former Code § 18.2-346(B) “must be strictly construed against the state and limited

in application to cases falling clearly within the language of the statute.” Bakran v.

       2
         Effective July 1, 2021, the General Assembly amended the Code by removing
subsection B of § 18.2-346 and adding § 18.2-346.01 containing the substance of former Code
§ 18.2-346(B).
                                              -5-
Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 197, 202 (2010) (quoting Fine v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 636,

640 (2000)), aff’d, 282 Va. 344 (2011).

    B. Sufficient Evidence of a Substantial Act in Furtherance of an Offer of Money for Sex

       When Thornton offered money in exchange for sex in November 2020, Code § 18.2-346

provided:

               A. Any person who, for money or its equivalent, (i) commits any
               act in violation of § 18.2-361; performs cunnilingus, fellatio, or
               anilingus upon or by another person; engages in sexual intercourse
               or anal intercourse; touches the unclothed genitals or anus of
               another person with the intent to sexually arouse or gratify; or
               allows another to touch his unclothed genitals or anus with the
               intent to sexually arouse or gratify or (ii) offers to commit any act
               in violation of § 18.2-361; perform cunnilingus, fellatio, or
               anilingus upon or by another person; engage in sexual intercourse
               or anal intercourse; touch the unclothed genitals or anus of another
               person with the intent to sexually arouse or gratify; or allow
               another to touch his unclothed genitals or anus with the intent to
               sexually arouse or gratify and thereafter does any substantial act in
               furtherance thereof is guilty of prostitution, which is punishable as
               a Class 1 misdemeanor.

               B. Any person who offers money or its equivalent to another for
               the purpose of engaging in sexual acts as enumerated in subsection
               A and thereafter does any substantial act in furtherance thereof is
               guilty of solicitation of prostitution, which is punishable as a Class
               1 misdemeanor. However, any person who solicits prostitution
               from a minor (i) 16 years of age or older is guilty of a Class 6
               felony or (ii) younger than 16 years of age is guilty of a Class 5
               felony.

2020 Va. Acts ch. 595.

       Thornton contends that the trial court erred in finding that he completed a substantial act

in furtherance of his offer of money for sex, as required under former Code § 18.2-346(B).

Consideration of Thornton’s argument requires us to construe the statutory phrase “substantial

act in furtherance thereof.” In construing a statute, this Court’s objective is “to search out and

follow the true intent of the legislature, and to adopt that sense of the words which harmonizes

best with the context, and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent policy and objects of the
                                                -6-
legislature.” Colbert v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 390, 394 (2006) (quoting Jones v. Rhea,

130 Va. 345, 372 (1921)). “[T]he general rule of statutory construction is to infer the

legislature’s intent from the plain meaning of the language used.” Meeks v. Commonwealth, 274

Va. 798, 802 (2007) (quoting Hubbard v. Henrico Ltd. P’ship, 255 Va. 335, 340 (1998)).

Accordingly, “words are to be given their ordinary meaning, unless it is apparent that the

legislative intent is otherwise.” Phelps v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 139, 142 (2008). “[W]hile

legislative intent ‘must be gathered from the words used, . . . unreasonable or absurd results must

not be reached by too strict adherence to literal interpretation.’” Colbert, 47 Va. App. at 395

(second alteration in original) (quoting Buzzard v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 641, 653 (1922)).

        The ordinary meaning of the word “substantial” is “something of moment: an important

or material matter, thing, or part.” Desai v. A. R. Design Grp., Inc., 293 Va. 426, 435 (2017)

(quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2280 (1993)). The plain, ordinary

meaning of the statutory term “furtherance” is “[t]he act of furthering, advancing, or helping

forward.” United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002) (alteration in original)

(quoting Webster’s II New College Dictionary 454 (1999)). Thus, an act constitutes a

“substantial act in furtherance” of an offer for prostitution only if it plays a significant or

important role in furthering or advancing the commission of the proposed sexual transaction. In

requiring proof of a substantial act in furtherance of an offer for prostitution, the General

Assembly evinced its intent to require evidence of post-offer conduct that is strongly

corroborative of a defendant’s intent to complete the proposed sexual transaction.

        We hold that an act plays a significant role in furthering or advancing an offer for

prostitution—and constitutes a substantial act in furtherance thereof—when the act is more than

mere preparation and is strongly corroborative of a defendant’s intent to complete the proposed

sexual transaction. Whether an act is a substantial act in furtherance of an offer for prostitution

                                                 -7-
is a question to be determined by the trier of fact upon consideration of the totality of the specific

facts and circumstances of each case.

       We further hold that the trial court’s finding that Thornton committed a substantial act in

furtherance of his offer for prostitution is supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong.

After Thornton arranged to meet “Emma” to exchange money for sex, he prepared for the

meeting by equipping himself with condoms, obtaining marijuana and cigarettes to get a

discounted price, buying the beer that “Emma” couldn’t buy for herself, and carrying over $160

in cash to pay for the sexual encounter. Then Thornton drove for about 25 minutes to the

arranged meeting place and arrived at the agreed time. Upon his arrival, Thornton notified

“Emma” by text message: “Here.” A rational fact-finder could find that Thornton’s 25-minute

drive to “Emma’s” address carrying the condoms, marijuana, cigarettes, beer, and cash went

beyond mere preparation and was strongly corroborative of an intent to complete the proposed

sexual transaction. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, a rational

fact-finder could conclude that Thornton’s drive to the arranged meeting place was a substantial

act in furtherance of his offer of money for sex.

       Thornton argues that he committed no act in furtherance of his offer for prostitution

because he did not give anyone money and he did not engage in sexual touching with anyone.

Thornton contends that his conduct was no more than preparation. We disagree. Although

evidence of an exchange of money or of sexual touching may be sufficient to prove the requisite

substantial act in furtherance of an offer for prostitution, such conduct is not necessary. See

Bakran, 57 Va. App. at 204 (defendant “committed substantial acts in furtherance of

prostitution” by engaging in physical sexual touching with undercover officer). A rational

fact-finder could find that the only plausible explanation for Thornton’s act of driving for miles

to “Emma’s” address with condoms and cash was to complete the proposed sexual transaction.

                                                -8-
A rational fact-finder could also find that if “Emma” had not been a decoy in a sting operation,

Thornton would have been dangerously close to paying for and having sex with a minor when he

parked at the arranged meeting place and notified “Emma” of his arrival. Thus, the evidence

supports a finding that Thornton’s drive to the arranged meeting place went beyond mere

preparation and was strongly corroborative of an intent to complete the proposed sexual

transaction. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that Thornton’s drive to the arranged

meeting place was a substantial act in furtherance of his offer for prostitution.

            C. Sufficient Evidence that Thornton Solicited Prostitution from a Minor

       Thornton contends that the trial court erred in finding that he solicited prostitution from a

minor because his only communications about exchanging money for sex occurred when

“Emma” claimed to be a 19-year-old adult. Thornton argues that since there was no offer to

exchange money for sex after “Emma” texted that she was “almost 18,” the evidence failed to

prove that he solicited prostitution from a minor.3 We disagree. A rational fact-finder could find

that Thornton was engaged in an ongoing negotiation about the terms of the proposed

prostitution until he and “Emma” agreed upon a place and time for the sexual transaction. After

“Emma” claimed that she was a minor, Thornton replied, “I don’t do under 18.” Seconds later,

“Emma” texted that she would keep their sexual transaction “just between us.” At that point,

there was no expressed agreement to engage in sexual activity for money. Five minutes later,

“Emma” texted that she was free and asked whether Thornton was coming. Then Thornton

agreed anew to meet with “Emma” and “check [her] out.” Subsequently, “Emma” required

Thornton to affirm that he was really coming before she would provide her address. Thornton

replied, “I am coming.” Then “Emma” inquired whether Thornton wanted to have sex without

       3
          Thornton does not argue that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he solicited
prostitution from a minor because his communications about exchanging money for sex were
with an adult detective, not a minor. Therefore, this opinion does not address this issue.
                                               -9-
using a condom—one of “Emma’s” advertised services. Thornton replied that he would bring

condoms. Then “Emma” provided her address, and they agreed to meet around 5:30 p.m.

Because a rational fact-finder could find that (i) Thornton agreed anew to meet for paid sex after

“Emma” texted that she was a minor and (ii) thereafter Thornton did a substantial act in

furtherance of the offer for prostitution, the trial court did not err in finding that Thornton

solicited prostitution from a minor.

                                           CONCLUSION

       The evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that Thornton committed a

substantial act in furtherance of an offer for prostitution and that Thornton solicited prostitution

from a minor.4 Therefore, this Court affirms Thornton’s conviction.

                                                                                             Affirmed.

       4
          The trial court’s conviction order entered September 7, 2021, and sentencing order
entered March 31, 2022, record the offense of conviction as “Solicit Prostitution From a Minor,”
omitting that the minor’s age was 16 or older. At the conclusion of Thornton’s trial, the trial
court pronounced that Thornton was guilty as charged of solicitation of prostitution from a
minor, age 16 or older, in violation of Code § 18.2-346. R. 194. Thus, the trial court convicted
Thornton of a Class 6 felony, not a Class 5 felony. See 2020 Va. Acts ch. 595 (former Code
§ 18.2-346(B)) (“any person who solicits prostitution from a minor (i) 16 years of age or older is
guilty of a Class 6 felony or (ii) younger than 16 years of age is guilty of a Class 5 felony”).
        Pursuant to Code § 8.01-428, “[c]lerical mistakes in all judgments or other parts of the
record and errors therein arising from oversight or from an inadvertent omission may be
corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or upon the motion of any party and after
such notice, as the court may order.” Code § 8.01-428(B).
                                                - 10 -