C.P. v. United States

── C.P. v. United States ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 20-CO-0728 & 23-CO-0724 C.P., APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (1979-FEL-003237) (Hon. Laura A. Cordero, Motions Judge) (Argued June 3, 2025 Decided April 9, 2026) Alice Wang, Public Defender Service, with whom Samia Fam, Jaclyn S. Frankfurt, and Lee R. Goebes, Public Defender Service, were on the briefs, for appellant. Eric Hansford, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Edward R. Martin, Jr., United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Chrisellen R. Kolb, Assistant United States Attorney, were on the brief, for appellee. Before HOWARD and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and MCLEAN, Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia. * MCLEAN, Associate Judge: In 1980, a jury convicted appellant C.P. of oral sodomy under D.C. Code § 22-3502 (1973), a since-repealed statute that * Sitting by designation pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-707(a).  2 criminalized all sodomy. The instructions to the jury stated that, under the statute, consent was not a defense. C.P.’s sentence included the requirement to register for life as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999 (SORA). C.P. filed a direct appeal in 1981; this court affirmed his conviction. C.P. filed a pro se motion to vacate his conviction in 2004, which the trial court denied. C.P. filed two additional motions in 2018 and 2021. The first motion argued that SORA registration is a severe penalty that triggers the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment and, since a jury did not determine whether C.P. committed forcible sodomy, the requirement was invalid. The second motion argued that the conviction and SORA registration requirement violated C.P.’s right to substantive due process under Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). The trial court denied both motions. C.P. now appeals the denial of the 2018 and 2021 motions. 1 We affirm the denials of the 2018 motion to challenge C.P.’s SORA registration and the 2021 motion to vacate C.P.’s conviction. 1 On September 18, 2024, C.P. also filed the Motion to Recaption Case Using Appellant’s Initials and to Refer to Appellant by His Initials in Any Written Material Produced in this Appeal (“Motion”). We grant the Motion to recaption the cases and refer to C.P. by his initials.  3 I. Background A. Trial 2 In 1979, a grand jury indicted C.P. and co-defendant Roy Leasure on two counts of sodomy, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3502 (1973), and two counts of rape, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-2801 (1973). Section 22-3502(a) stated that [e]very person who shall be convicted of taking into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of placing his or her sexual organ in the mouth or anus of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of having carnal copulation in an opening of the body except sexual parts with another person, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding ten y