Federal Criminal Charges Alleging a “Crime of Violence”

ORIGINAL CASE DETAILS

In 2003, Justin Taylor was a marijuana dealer, and with a co-conspirator, set up a drug deal where they planned to rob Taylor’s customer, another marijuana dealer named Martin Sylvester. During the attempted robbery, Sylvester suffered a fatal gunshot wound when a semiautomatic pistol discharged that was brought by Taylor’s co-conspirator. Taylor and his co-conspirator then fled the scene, never taking any of Sylvester’s money. Taylor was then charged with seven federal felonies that included 

• Conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery
• Attempted Hobbs Act robbery
• Using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence

Taylor later pled guilty to conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery and the use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. He was sentenced by the court to 240 months for the conspiracy conviction and 120 months consecutively (to run after the 240 months are completed) for using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Taylor’s total sentence for both charges equaled 360 months. Taylor later appealed on the basis that the case of Johnson v. United States substantially narrowed the definition of what a “violent felony” is under federal law and that a collateral review of his case was necessary. Taylor contended that under Johnson, the crimes of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery should no longer be considered crimes of violence and that his convictions should be vacated. His appeal has made its way to the United States Supreme Court. Oral arguments took place before the court in early December. 

THE LAWS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THIS CASE

This case affects two different federal statutes simultaneously, the Hobbs Act (18 USC § 1951), and 18 USC § 924(c). These statutes are described as follows:

• Hobbs Act – This federal statute makes prohibits committing or attempting to commit a robbery that affects interstate commerce in some way. Robbery is defined under the Hobbs Act as an unlawful taking “by means of actual or threatened force.”
• 18 USC § 924(c) – prohibits the use of a firearm during the commission of a “crime of violence.” Under the “elements clause” of this statute, a crime of violence is defined as any felony that “has an element of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property of another.” Under the “residual clause” of this statute, a crime of violence is also any felony that by nature includes a “substantial risk” of physical force. This definition in the residual portion of the statute was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2019 as unconstitutionally vague, leaving only the elements clause to define what a crime of violence is.

Here, the Court will determine whether an attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act is considered a “crime of violence” under 18 USC § 924(c). There is no dispute whether a completed robbery under the Hobbs Act is considered a crime of violence, as a robbery under the Hobbs Act, in itself, requires the use of actual or threatened force. The Court will determine how narrowly to interpret the definitions of the federal statute. 

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?

If you are facing a federal criminal charge where you are alleged to have committed a “crime of violence,” then this can affect you directly. The definition and interpretation of what an attempt is can be argued and defended in several ways. If the Supreme Court sides with Taylor, it means that courts will have to interpret cases more narrowly to determine if they meet the definition of a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of 18 USC § 924(c). If the Court sides with the Government, then cases can be interpreted more broadly to be considered crimes of violence which can lead to harsher punishments handed down by federal judges across the country. If you have specific legal questions about the Hobbs Act or what a crime of violence is, then call us at Bajoka Law today so we can help!