Summary
The Eleventh Circuit held that a taking does not constitute Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 unless actual or threatened force is used before or during the taking. Because the marijuana was taken and carried away before the defendant used deadly force, the court set aside his substantive Hobbs Act robbery conviction and the related firearm-and-murder conviction, while leaving the conspiracy conviction undisturbed. The court also vacated the sentences on the reversed convictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a taking constitutes Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 when the property is taken by surreptitious means and force is used only afterward to facilitate escape or retain control of the situation.
- Whether Grable’s firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924 was sustainable when the predicate Hobbs Act robbery conviction could not stand.
- Whether the district court’s sentencing issues concerning the consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j) required resolution after the convictions on Counts 2 and 3 were set aside.
Holdings
- A taking of property does not constitute robbery under the Hobbs Act unless actual or threatened force is used before or during the taking. Force used only after the property has been taken and carried away does not transform the completed theft into Hobbs Act robbery.
- The firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924(j)(1) could not stand because it was premised on the substantive Hobbs Act robbery charged in Count 2, and the government failed to prove that robbery.
- The sentences on Counts 2 and 3 were vacated because the underlying convictions were set aside; the court did not decide the parties’ independent sentencing arguments under §§ 924(c) and 924(j).
Key quotations
“We hold today that a taking of property does not constitute robbery under the Hobbs Act unless force or threatened force is used before or during the taking.” (2)
“Mr. Grable’s shooting of the victims did not transform the earlier theft of the marijuana into a Hobbs Act robbery.” (12)
“We set aside Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2 and 3 due to insufficient evidence and vacate his sentences on those convictions.” (20)
Factual background
Grable and two co-conspirators agreed to steal marijuana from Bowling. One co-conspirator surreptitiously took the marijuana and left the apartment while Grable remained inside, unaware that the marijuana had been taken. Several minutes later, after Bowling and Manuel confronted Grable and prevented him from leaving, Grable shot and killed both men and then fled with his co-conspirators.
Procedural history
A grand jury charged Grable with Hobbs Act conspiracy, substantive Hobbs Act robbery, and a firearm offense premised on the robbery. After the district court denied his Rule 29 motions and post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal, a jury convicted him on all counts. The district court imposed a 240-month sentence on each of Counts 1 and 2 and a consecutive life sentence on Count 3. The Eleventh Circuit set aside the convictions on Counts 2 and 3, vacated the sentences on those counts, left the Count 1 conviction and sentence intact, and remanded to correct the judgment.
Remand instructions
Remand for the district court to correct the judgment in accordance with the opinion, reflecting that Counts 2 and 3 are set aside and their sentences are vacated while the 20-year sentence on Count 1 remains.