Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 3:22-cr-00012-TES-CHW-1
06-12-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. AHKIL NASIR CRUMPTON, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Ahkil Crumpton's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 70], asking the Court to dismiss counts II and III of the Indictment [Doc. 1].
On May 10, 2022, the Government obtained an Indictment [Doc. 1] charging Defendant with Interference with Commerce by Attempted Robbery, Use and Discharge of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, Murder with a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, and False Statement During the Purchase of a Firearm, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2; 922(a)(6); 924(a)(2), (c)(1)(A), (j)(1); and 1951. [Doc. 1]. On June 3, 2022, Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. [Doc. 25].
In his Motion, Defendant argues that counts II and III-charging him with Use and Discharge of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence and Murder with a Firearm During a Crime of Violence-must be dismissed because count I-Interference with Commerce by Attempted Robbery (“attempted Hobbs Act robbery”)-does not qualify as a “crime of violence.” [Doc. 70, p. 2]. The Government filed a Response [Doc. 72] agreeing with Defendant's reading of current precedent and concluding that it “will only be able to proceed to trial on Counts One and Four.” [Doc. 72, p. 1].
In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1).
In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
The Court agrees with the parties' analysis. To be sure, the United States Supreme Court clearly answered the question in United States v. Taylor, when it held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence to serve as a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 142 S.Ct. 2015 (2022). In reaching that conclusion, the Court reasoned that under the elements clause-18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)-attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not meet the definition of a crime of violence. Id. at 2021. Indeed, the Court concluded that “[s]imply put, no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.” Id. Following Taylor, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court's command was clear: “attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the elements clause.” United States v. Camacho, No. 21-10943, 2023 WL 3404900, at *2 (11th Cir. May 12, 2023); see also United States v. Gonzalez, No. 21-13306, 2022 WL 16570911, at *1 (11th Cir. Nov. 1, 2022) (“The Supreme Court recently held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c), so we reverse Benitez's conviction under that statute.”). Therefore, Hobbs Act attempted robbery cannot be used as the predicate offense underlying a charge under § 924(c)(1)(A).
The phrase “crime of violence” is defined in § 924(c)(3) in two clauses. First, under the elements clause, it is defined as a felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). The second clause-called the residual clause-defines a crime of violence as one “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). The Court did not apply the residual clause in Taylor because it previously held that clause to be unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019).
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 70]. Accordingly, counts II and III of the Indictment [Doc. 1] are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.