United States v. Campbell
2017 WL 3223925, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13825, 865 F.3d 853 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal bank robbery by intimidation under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is a "crime of violence" under the elements clause of the pre-2016 career offender Sentencing Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). A crime's classification as a "general intent" offense does not preclude it from being a crime of violence, as this mental state is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a purposeful act and is distinct from mere recklessness or negligence.
Facts:
- In May 2012, Jerry Campbell was a resident at a Salvation Army Residential Reentry Center in Chicago.
- On May 27, 2012, after leaving a hospital without authorization, Campbell entered a grocery store containing a branch bank.
- Inside the store, Campbell gathered a pair of sunglasses, a turquoise and purple squirt gun, and a bottle of tequila.
- Campbell went into the restroom, drank the liquor, turned his shirt inside out, and put on the sunglasses.
- He then approached the bank tellers, pointed the squirt gun at them, and said, “Let’s make this easy,” and “Hey big boy, I want both drawers from you.”
- The tellers complied, filling his shopping bag with $1,495 in currency.
- Campbell left the bank area but was promptly arrested by police in the store's parking lot.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Campbell was indicted in the U.S. District Court on a single count of bank robbery by intimidation.
- The district court found Campbell mentally incompetent to stand trial, leading to two years of hospitalization.
- In July 2015, after his competency was restored, Campbell entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty.
- Prior to sentencing, Campbell's counsel filed a memorandum arguing that he should not be sentenced as a career offender because bank robbery by intimidation is not a crime of violence.
- The district court rejected this argument, classified the offense as a crime of violence, calculated the guideline range as 151-188 months, and imposed a sentence of 100 months.
- Campbell (appellant) appealed the district court’s sentencing decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing against his designation as a career offender.
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 the offense of federal bank robbery by intimidation, a general intent crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), qualify as a "crime of violence" under the elements clause of the pre-2016 career offender Sentencing Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
Yes. Federal bank robbery by intimidation qualifies as a crime of violence under the career offender Guideline. To determine this, the court applies the categorical approach, looking only at the statutory elements of the crime, not the particular facts of the case, such as Campbell's use of a squirt gun. Relying on its precedent in United States v. Armour and United States v. Williams, the court reasoned that the element of "intimidation" in § 2113(a) necessarily requires a threatened use of physical force, as it is defined as conduct that would cause an ordinary person to reasonably fear that resistance will be met with force. The court rejected Campbell's argument that the crime's status as a "general intent" offense disqualifies it, clarifying that prior case law only excludes crimes with a mental state of recklessness or negligence, not general intent crimes that involve the purposeful use or threat of force.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Seventh Circuit's position that bank robbery by intimidation is a predicate offense for the career offender sentencing enhancement, harmonizing the interpretation of the Guideline's "elements clause" with similar clauses in other federal statutes. The court's analysis clarifies that the mens rea (mental state) required for a crime of violence excludes only lower-level culpability like negligence or recklessness, not general intent. This precedent significantly curtails a defendant's ability to argue that a conviction for bank robbery by intimidation in the Seventh Circuit should not trigger the substantial increase in prison time associated with career offender status.
