Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog
In federal criminal cases, convictions often hinge on whether the charged offense meets the statutory definition of a predicate crime. This definition impacts sentencing enhancements, particularly for crimes involving firearms. Recently, a Florida court explored whether various offenses, including bank robbery, qualify as crimes of violence under federal law. If you are accused of robbery or any other crime, it is essential to seek the advice of an experienced Clearwater theft defense attorney to determine your rights.
Case Facts and Procedural History
It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple offenses stemming from a series of incidents, including Hobbs Act robbery, bank robbery, and related firearms charges. Specifically, Armstrong faced counts for 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) for bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting attempted bank robbery. He ultimately pleaded guilty to several counts.
Allegedly, during sentencing, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the classification of certain predicate offenses as crimes of violence. He argued that these offenses, particularly bank robbery, could be committed in non-violent ways, such as through intimidation, which does not involve the use of physical force.
Reportedly, the district court rejected this argument, relying on Eleventh Circuit precedent that categorically defined federal bank robbery as a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c). The defendant was sentenced to 420 months in prison, combining mandatory minimums for his firearm offenses and terms for the underlying robberies. The defendant appealed, and the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit following its decision in United States v. Taylor, which clarified the definition of a crime of violence for attempted Hobbs Act robbery.Crimes of Violence Under Federal Law
On remand, the court revisited Armstrong’s convictions in light of United States v. Taylor. The court first examined whether federal bank robbery under the federal statute constitutes a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s use-of-force clause. Using the categorical approach, the court reaffirmed its prior holdings that bank robbery by intimidation inherently involves the threat of physical force. The court emphasized that intimidation entails conduct leading a reasonable person to fear bodily harm, meeting the definition of a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A).
Further, the court analyzed whether aiding and abetting bank robbery and attempted bank robbery similarly qualified as crimes of violence. The court applied the modified categorical approach to the divisible statute and reviewed Shepard documents, including the indictment and plea agreements, to determine the specific offenses committed. It concluded that both aiding and abetting bank robbery and attempted bank robbery categorically require proof of conduct involving force or intimidation, satisfying the use-of-force clause.
The court rejected the defendant’s vagueness arguments against § 924(c), distinguishing the residual clause invalidated in United States v. Davis from the elements clause. It noted that the statutory language and binding precedent sufficiently defined crimes of violence to provide clear notice to defendants. The appellate court ultimately affirmed Armstrong’s convictions and sentence, maintaining the mandatory consecutive terms for the § 924(c) offenses.
Speak to a Trusted Clearwater Defense Attorney Today
If you face federal theft charges, you should speak with a criminal defense attorney about your options as soon as possible. The trusted Clearwater theft defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are dedicated to protecting the rights of those accused of federal crimes, and if we represent you, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact us today at 727-897-5413 or via our online form to schedule a consultation to discuss your case.