United States v. Bryan Worley Bellew
369 F.3d 450 (2004)
Rule of Law:
A conviction for attempted bank robbery under the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) requires the government to prove that the defendant committed an actual act of intimidation; proof of attempted intimidation is insufficient.
Facts:
- On April 5, 2002, Bryan Worley Bellew entered the First Independent National Bank wearing an obvious wig and carrying a briefcase.
- The briefcase contained a firearm, written instructions on how to rob the bank, and a demand note.
- Bellew asked to speak with the bank manager but was told the manager was busy and to wait.
- After waiting for a few minutes, Bellew left the bank, stating that he would return.
- Bellew returned later, but the manager was still unavailable, and he was told to come back that afternoon.
- A suspicious bank employee contacted the police.
- Upon seeing the police arrive, Bellew ran to his vehicle, retrieved the firearm from his briefcase, and held it to his own head.
- During a later police interrogation, Bellew admitted that he had intended to rob the bank.
Procedural Posture:
- Bryan Worley Bellew was charged in a federal indictment with attempted bank robbery.
- The indictment was superseded to add a second count of carrying a firearm during an attempted bank robbery.
- Following a trial in a federal district court, a jury convicted Bellew on both counts.
- Bellew filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
- The district court denied the motion.
- Bellew (Appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction for attempted bank robbery under the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), which criminalizes 'by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take' property from a bank, require proof of an actual act of intimidation, or is an attempted act of intimidation sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Benavides, Circuit Judge
No, a conviction for attempted bank robbery under the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) requires proof of an actual act of intimidation, and attempted intimidation is insufficient. A textual analysis of the statute, which reads 'Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take...', indicates that the 'attempt' applies only to the 'taking' of property, not to the means ('by intimidation') used to accomplish it. The court's precedent in cases like United States v. McCarty has consistently parsed the statute to require that the defendant 'used force and violence or intimidation' as a distinct and completed element of the crime. The government conceded that Bellew committed no actual act of intimidation. Furthermore, the legislative history shows that Congress added a second paragraph to § 2113(a) specifically to cover situations where a person enters a bank with criminal intent but is thwarted before completing the crime, which would have been the appropriate charge in this case.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strict interpretation of the federal bank robbery statute within the Fifth Circuit, creating a circuit split with the Second and Fourth Circuits, which had previously held that attempted intimidation was sufficient. The ruling emphasizes a textualist approach, requiring prosecutors to prove each element of a crime as explicitly written in the statute. It serves as a significant cautionary example for prosecutors regarding charging decisions, highlighting the necessity of charging defendants under all applicable statutory provisions, as a conviction might have been sustained here under the uncharged second paragraph of § 2113(a).
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Bryan Worley Bellew (2004)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"