Appeals Court rules attempted armed bank robbery is violent crime

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals used a North Carolina case Monday to clarify that attempted armed bank robbery is a violent crime under federal law. The decision could affect the types of sentences criminal defendants can face when convicted of the crime.

The case dates back to 2009, when defendant Monte Straite and others robbed a Bank of America branch in Davie County, according to the 4th Circuit’s unanimous opinion.

“A few months later, Straite and others returned to rob the same bank, again carrying firearms,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote. “This time, the bank manager saw and recognized them, locked the building, and stopped the robbery.”

A jury later convicted Straite of armed bank robbery, attempted armed bank robbery, and “brandishing firearms” in connection with both incidents. The 4th Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence in 2014.

Straite appealed several post-conviction rulings. The 4th Circuit agreed to address the “sole issue of whether Straite’s attempted armed bank robbery conviction qualified as a ‘crime of violence’ to support his related Section 924(c) conviction,” Gregory wrote.

“[A]n offense is a ‘crime of violence’ if it has as an element ‘the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,’” Gregory explained. “Thus, the central question we must resolve is whether attempted armed bank robbery has as an element ‘the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,’ or whether it is an inchoate offense that can be proven by intent plus a substantial step alone.”

A 1984 precedent case, United States v. McFadden, interprets the federal law in a way that “appears to be in tension with the statutory text,” Gregory wrote.

“Nonetheless, we need not overturn McFadden today to resolve this case,” he added. “That is because the language of Section 2113(d) alone is sufficient to make it a categorical crime of violence.”

The law says: “Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both.”

“The plain language of this is quite clear: When a defendant ‘assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device’ during the commission or attempted commission of a crime, he has committed an offense under this subsection,” Gregory wrote. “Because committing and attempting to commit the offense both require either assault or putting in jeopardy, Section 2113(d), and because the assault and the putting in jeopardy both require use of a dangerous weapon or device, this offense categorically requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”

The 4th Circuit rejected Straite’s legal arguments.

“Defendant argues that a person could be convicted of attempted armed robbery under Section 2113(d) if they simply put their own lives in jeopardy — for example, by threatening to shoot themselves if they are not given money, or by showing up with an unloaded weapon and thereby jeopardizing their own lives in front of armed police officers,” Gregory wrote. “This argument is ultimately unpersuasive. That is because under a classic understanding of ‘assault,’ one cannot assault himself.”

Judges Julius Richardson and Allison Jones Rushing joined Gregory’s opinion.

“Appeals Court rules attempted armed bank robbery is violent crime” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.