United States v. Michael St. Hubert
909 F.3d 335 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery both qualify as a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), satisfying both the elements clause (§ 924(c)(3)(A)) under a categorical analysis and the residual clause (§ 924(c)(3)(B)) under a conduct-based analysis.
Facts:
- Between December 2014 and January 2015, Michael St. Hubert committed a series of five robberies and one attempted robbery in southern Florida.
- On January 21, 2015, St. Hubert robbed an AutoZone store in Hollywood, Florida.
- During this robbery, St. Hubert brandished a firearm, directed three employees to the back of the store, demanded money from the safe, and threatened to shoot them.
- St. Hubert stole approximately $2,300 during the January 21st robbery.
- On January 27, 2015, St. Hubert attempted to rob a different AutoZone store in Miami, Florida.
- During the attempted robbery, St. Hubert held a firearm against one employee's side while directing another employee to open the store safe.
- St. Hubert fled the scene after an employee noticed a police vehicle outside and ran to get help.
- Following a car chase, law enforcement officials arrested St. Hubert at his residence.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael St. Hubert was indicted on thirteen counts, including six § 924(c) firearm counts, in the U.S. District Court.
- St. Hubert filed a motion to dismiss the § 924(c) counts, arguing that Hobbs Act robbery is not a 'crime of violence' and that the statute's residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss.
- Pursuant to a written plea agreement, St. Hubert pled guilty to two § 924(c) firearm counts (Counts 8 and 12).
- The district court accepted the plea and sentenced St. Hubert to 84 months' imprisonment on Count 8 and a consecutive 300 months' on Count 12.
- St. Hubert filed a timely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 Hobbs Act robbery or attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualify as a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)?
Opinions:
Majority - Hull, Circuit Judge
Yes, a conviction for Hobbs Act robbery or attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). The court provides two independent grounds for its holding. First, under the residual clause (§ 924(c)(3)(B)), the court applies the 'conduct-based approach' established in Ovalles II. This approach examines the defendant's actual conduct and, in this case, St. Hubert's admitted actions of brandishing a firearm, threatening employees, and holding a gun to a person's side clearly involved a 'substantial risk that physical force' would be used. Second, as an alternative ground, the offenses qualify under the elements clause (§ 924(c)(3)(A)). Applying the categorical approach, the court holds that Hobbs Act robbery, which requires taking property by 'actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury,' necessarily has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court reasons that attempted Hobbs Act robbery also qualifies because an attempt requires the specific intent to commit all elements of the completed crime, including the element of force, thus satisfying the 'attempted use' of force language in § 924(c)(3)(A).
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Eleventh Circuit's approach to defining 'crime of violence' under § 924(c), particularly after the Supreme Court's decisions in Johnson and Dimaya cast doubt on similarly-worded residual clauses. By affirming the constitutionality of § 924(c)(3)(B) through a 'conduct-based approach,' the court carves out a distinct position from other circuits that found the clause void for vagueness. Furthermore, by providing a robust alternative holding that Hobbs Act robbery and its attempt categorically satisfy the elements clause, the court ensures that these common predicate offenses for § 924(c) charges remain viable, regardless of future challenges to the residual clause. This dual-pronged reasoning provides prosecutors with a very stable foundation for bringing enhanced firearm charges in connection with such robberies.
