United States v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 21 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-1459 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. JUSTIN EUGENE TAYLOR |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
For his participation in an unsuccessful robbery during which his accomplice shot a man, respondent Justin Taylor faced charges of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951(a), and of committing a "crime of violence" under §924(c). The Hobbs Act makes it a federal crime to commit, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit a robbery with an interstate component. §1951(a). Section 924(c) authorizes enhanced punishments for those who use a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence" as defined in either §924(c)(3)(A)-known as the elements clause-or §924(c)(3)(B)-known as the residual clause. Before the District Court, the government argued that Taylor's Hobbs Act offense qualified as a "crime of violence" under §924(c). Taylor ultimately pleaded guilty to one count each of violating the Hobbs Act and §924(c). The District Court sentenced Taylor to 30 years in federal prison-a decade more than the maximum sentence for his Hobbs Act conviction alone. Taylor later filed a federal habeas petition focused on his §924(c) conviction, which was predicated on his admission that he had committed both conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery. Taylor argued neither Hobbes Act offense qualified as a "crime of violence" for purposes of §924(c) after United States v. Davis, 588 U.S ___. In Davis, this Court held that §924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. Id., at ____-____. In his habeas proceeding, Taylor asked the court to apply Davis retroactively and vacate his §924(c) conviction and sentence. The government maintained that Taylor's §924(c) conviction and sentence remained sound because his crime of attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause. The Fourth Circuit held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under §924(c)(3)(A). The Fourth Circuit vacated Taylor's §924(c) conviction and remanded the case for resentencing. In reaching its judgment, the Fourth Circuit noted that other courts have held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause.
Held: Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under §924(c)(3)(A) because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force. Pp. 3-13.
(a) The Court applies a "categorical approach" to determine whether a federal felony may serve as a predicate for a conviction and sentence under the elements clause, which poses the question whether the federal felony in question "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force." §924(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added). The relevant inquiry is not how any particular defendant may commit the crime but whether the federal felony at issue always requires the government to prove-beyond a reasonable doubt, as an element of its case-the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force. This Court has long understood similarly worded statutes to demand similarly categorical inquiries. See, e.g., Borden v. United States, 593 U.S.___, ____.
An attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements clause. To secure a conviction for attempted Hobbs Act robbery, the government must prove that the defendant intended to complete the offense and that the defendant completed a "substantial step" toward that end. See, e.g., United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 107. An intention is just that, no more. And whatever a substantial step requires, it does not require the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or even threatened to use force against another person or his property-even if the facts would allow the government to do so in many cases. As the Model Penal Code explains with respect to the Hobbs Act's common-law robbery analogue, "there will be cases, appropriately reached by a charge of attempted robbery, where the actor does not actually harm anyone or even threaten harm." ALI, Model Penal Code §222.1, p. 114. But no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force. Pp. 3-6.
(b) The government's countervailing arguments fail. Pp. 6-13.
(1) The government first argues that the elements clause encompasses not only any offense that qualifies as a "crime of violence" but also any attempt to commit such a crime. But the elements clause only asks whether the defendant did commit a crime of violence as defined by the statute. Pp. 6-7.
(2) The government next argues that the "substantial step" element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery categorically requires it to prove
that a defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use physical force. But while many who commit the crime of attempted Hobbs Act robbery do use, attempt to use, or threaten to use force, the government's problem is that no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires the government to prove such facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The government maintains that anyone who takes a substantial step toward completing Hobbs Act robbery always or categorically poses a "threatened use" of force because the word "threat" can be used to speak of an abstract risk. The government submits that the elements clause uses the term to require only an objective, if uncommunicated, threat to community peace and order. But when Congress uses the word "threat" in such an abstract and predictive (rather than communicative) sense, it usually makes its point plain. The textual clues in the statute point in the opposite direction of the government's reading. Moreover, the government's view of the elements clause would have it effectively replicate the work formerly performed by the residual clause. Under usual rules of statutory interpretation, the Court does not lightly assume Congress adopts two separate clauses in the same law to perform the same work. See, e.g., Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 839, n. 14. Pp. 7-10.
(3) The government's final theory accepts that a conviction under the elements clause requires a communicated threat of force and contends that most attempted Hobbs Act robbery prosecutions involve exactly that. But whatever this argument proves, the theory cannot be squared with the statute's terms. Congress in the elements clause did not mandate an empirical inquiry into how crimes are usually committed, let alone impose a burden on the defendant to present proof about the government's own prosecutorial habits. Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not categorically require proof of the elements § 924(c)(3)(A) demands. That ends the inquiry, and nothing in Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, suggests otherwise. Pp. 10-13.
979 F.3d 203, affirmed.
OPINION
Does attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualify as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)? The answer matters because a person convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery alone normally faces up to 20 years in prison. But if that offense qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A), the same individual may face a second felony conviction and years or decades of further imprisonment.
After a robbery went awry and his accomplice shot a man, the federal government charged Justin Taylor with violating the Hobbs Act and § 924(c). The Hobbs Act makes it a federal crime to commit, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit a robbery with an interstate component. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Meanwhile, § 924(c) authorizes further punishments for those who use a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence."
For purposes of § 924(c), a federal felony qualifies as a "crime of violence" if it meets either of two definitions. The first definition is found in § 924(c)(3)(A), a provision sometimes called the elements clause. That clause covers offenses that "ha[ve] as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another." The second definition, located next door in § 924(c)(3)(B) and often referred to as the residual clause, encompasses offenses that "by [their] nature, involv[e] a substantial risk that physical force . . . may be used."
Before the District Court, the government argued that Mr. Taylor's Hobbs Act offense qualified as a "crime of violence" under these definitions. And at that point, Mr. Taylor did not disagree, choosing instead to plead guilty to one count each of violating the Hobbs Act and § 924(c). For his crimes, the District Court sentenced Mr. Taylor to 30 years in federal prison-a decade more than he could have received for his Hobbs Act conviction alone.
Later Mr. Taylor filed a federal habeas petition. In it, he did not challenge his Hobbs Act conviction. Instead, he focused on § 924(c). Mr. Taylor submitted that his § 924(c) conviction was predicated on his admission that he had committed both conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery. And, Mr. Taylor argued, neither of those offenses continued to qualify as a "crime of violence" after United States v. Davis, 588 U.S.___ (2019). In Davis, this Court held § 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause unconstitutionally vague, and we refused to enforce a conviction and sentence premised on its terms. Id., at ___-___ (slip op., at 24-25). In his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Frazier
...See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #186) at 9. The Court ordered further briefing on defendant's remaining claim that under United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015 (2022), prior conviction for attempted aggravated battery is not a crime of violence under Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelin......