Robo en Texas — Texas marco de defensa

Elementos del robbery bajo Penal Code seccion 29.02

Penal Code seccion 29.02(a) define robbery:

Una persona comete robbery si, en el curso de cometer theft como definido en Capitulo 31 y con intencion de obtener o mantener control de la propiedad, el actor:

1. (a)(1) Intencional, consciente, o imprudentemente causa bodily injury a otra persona; o
2. (a)(2) Intencional o conscientemente amenaza o pone a otra persona en miedo de imminent bodily injury o death.

Los elementos clave a probar:

1. Theft (Penal Code Capitulo 31). La fiscalia debe probar theft elements — unlawful appropriation de property con intent to deprive the owner. La theft puede ser de cualquier value — no hay value threshold para robbery (unlike Class C theft of property under $100).
2. Intent to obtain or maintain control. El actor debe tener intent de obtener o mantener control de la propiedad — no mere desire para confrontation u other purpose.
3. Course of committing theft. The bodily injury or threat must occur en el curso de cometer theft. "In the course of committing theft" bajo seccion 29.01(1) means conduct that occurs en an attempt to commit, during the commission, o en immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.
4. Bodily injury OR threat. Either (1) actual bodily injury caused intentionally/knowingly/recklessly; OR (2) threat of imminent bodily injury or death made intentionally/knowingly.

"Bodily injury" bajo Penal Code seccion 1.07(a)(8) means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. The threshold is very low — pushing, grabbing, minor scratches can satisfy. "Threat" bajo standard Texas interpretation can be verbal, physical gesture (raising fist, displaying weapon), or implied by conduct.

La penalidad es felonia de segundo grado (2 a 20 anos TDCJ + multa hasta $10,000). Bajo CCP Art. 42A.054, regular robbery (NO aggravated) is 3g-listed solo en certain circumstances — review specific facts para determinar 3g status. Generally, regular robbery es eligible for community supervision impuesta por juez bajo Art. 42A.053, incluyendo deferred adjudication bajo Art. 42A.101.

Aggravated robbery bajo seccion 29.03 — los tres elementos agravantes

Penal Code seccion 29.03(a) eleva el cargo a felonia de primer grado cuando el actor comete robbery as defined en seccion 29.02 AND uno de tres elementos agravantes esta presente:

1. (a)(1) Serious bodily injury. Causa serious bodily injury a otra persona. "Serious bodily injury" bajo Penal Code seccion 1.07(a)(46) means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Mas serio que simple bodily injury — typically requires significant medical intervention or lasting effect.
2. (a)(2) Deadly weapon. Uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. "Deadly weapon" bajo seccion 1.07(a)(17) means (A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or (B) anything that en the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Common examples include firearms (real or BB/pellet capable of causing serious injury), knives, blunt objects, vehicles used to ram, even hands/feet en manner capable of causing serious bodily injury.
3. (a)(3) Elderly or disabled victim. Causes bodily injury to a person 65 years of age or older o a disabled person, OR threatens or places en fear of imminent bodily injury or death such a person. "Disabled person" definicion includes physical, mental, or developmental disability that substantially impairs major life activity.

La penalidad es felonia de primer grado (5 a 99 anos o vida TDCJ + multa hasta $10,000). Aggravated robbery es 3g-listed bajo CCP Art. 42A.054:

• Community supervision impuesta por juez NO esta disponible para sentencias mayores de 10 anos.
• Community supervision recomendada por jurado bajo Art. 42A.056 requiere application especifica y favorable vote del jurado.
• Con deadly weapon finding (which is typically auto en aggravated robbery con (a)(2) basis), Government Code seccion 508.145(d) calendar-time rule applies — half of sentence or 30 calendar years, whichever is less.

Para una sentencia tipica de 20 anos en aggravated robbery con deadly weapon finding, el piso de tiempo calendario es 10 anos antes de parole eligibility. Para 60 anos, el piso es 30 anos.

Common scenarios:

• Armed robbery de convenience store con firearm — automatic aggravated bajo (a)(2)
• Carjacking con deadly weapon — aggravated bajo (a)(2)
• Home invasion robbery con weapon — aggravated bajo (a)(2)
• Robbery of elderly person — aggravated bajo (a)(3) regardless de weapon
• Robbery causing victim to be hospitalized — potentially aggravated bajo (a)(1) if injuries qualify as serious bodily injury

Theft elements y "in the course of committing theft"

El robbery foundation es theft. Penal Code seccion 31.03(a) defines theft: A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

"Unlawful appropriation" bajo seccion 31.03(b):

1. Without the owner's effective consent;
2. Property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or
3. Property in the custody of any law enforcement agency is explicitly represented by the law enforcement agency as stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen.

"Effective consent" bajo seccion 31.01(3) means consent by a person legally authorized to give it. Consent is not effective if induced by deception or coercion, given by minor or person known to be incompetent, given by person known to be unable to give reasonable consent due to intoxication, mental disease, etc.

"In the course of committing theft" bajo seccion 29.01(1) is broader than the actual taking — encompasses: (1) attempt to commit theft; (2) commission of theft; or (3) immediate flight after attempt or commission.

This broader definition creates substantial robbery exposure:

• Shoplifter who pushes or threatens loss prevention officer during attempted escape — robbery, even if no theft completed.
• Person who flees shoplifting confrontation, knocks down witness — robbery during immediate flight.
• Suspect who fights with officer responding to theft call within minutes — potential robbery if connection to theft can be proven.

Defense considerations re: "in the course of theft":

• Has the theft attempt been abandoned before the assault/threat?
• Is the temporal connection sufficient for "immediate flight"?
• Is the bodily injury or threat actually related to the theft or to an independent cause (personal dispute, drug debt, etc.)?
• Was the actor's intent at the time of the assault/threat related to obtaining/maintaining control of property?

If the assault/threat is unconnected to theft — for example, a fight after a drug deal goes bad with no theft element — the proper charge is assault or aggravated assault, NOT robbery. The robbery charge requires the theft connection.

Federal Hobbs Act bajo 18 U.S.C. seccion 1951

The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. seccion 1951) provides federal jurisdiction over robberies affecting interstate commerce. The statute:

seccion 1951(a). Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property en furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

"Robbery" definicion bajo seccion 1951(b)(1). The unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or en the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

"Commerce" definicion bajo seccion 1951(b)(3). Interstate commerce, and other commerce: (1) over which the United States has jurisdiction; (2) between the District of Columbia or any U.S. territory and any state; (3) between points in the same state through any other state or any other territory; (4) within the District of Columbia or any U.S. territory.

The "affects commerce" element is exceptionally broad. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960), and subsequent cases establish that even minimal effects on interstate commerce can satisfy. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), imposed some constitutional limits but Hobbs Act jurisdiction remains extremely broad.

Common Hobbs Act applications:

• Robbery of commercial business (convenience store, gas station, restaurant, bank, jewelry store)
• Carjacking of vehicle used in commerce
• Robbery of drug dealer (drug commerce affects interstate commerce — even illegal commerce satisfies)
• Robbery of cargo or shipments
• Robbery of business proceeds being transported

Federal Hobbs Act prosecutions are handled by U.S. Attorney's Offices for Northern District (TXND) y Eastern District (TXED) — both have violent crimes sections. Sentencing under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines USSG §2B3.1 typically produces significant prison terms — enhanced for firearm use, injury to victim, bodily injury, restraint of victim, etc. Add 924(c) for use of firearm during/in furtherance — mandatory consecutive 5/7/10/30-year terms (depending on weapon type and conduct).

Dual sovereignty bajo Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019), permits federal and state prosecution for the same conduct — no double jeopardy. Robbery cases with interstate commerce nexus may face dual prosecution.

18 U.S.C. seccion 924(c) — federal firearm enhancement

When firearm is used in connection with federal crime of violence (including Hobbs Act robbery), 18 U.S.C. seccion 924(c) imposes mandatory consecutive sentences:

• seccion 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime for which person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries firearm — minimum 5 years consecutive.
• seccion 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). If firearm is brandished — minimum 7 years consecutive.
• seccion 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). If firearm is discharged — minimum 10 years consecutive.
• seccion 924(c)(1)(B)(i). If firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon — minimum 10 years consecutive.
• seccion 924(c)(1)(B)(ii). If firearm is a machinegun, destructive device, or firearm equipped with silencer — minimum 30 years consecutive.
• seccion 924(c)(1)(C). Second or subsequent conviction — minimum 25 years consecutive.

The "consecutive" requirement is critical — these terms run AFTER the underlying Hobbs Act robbery sentence, not concurrently. A typical Hobbs Act robbery with brandishing of firearm can produce a sentence structure like:

• Hobbs Act robbery: 8-12 years (per USSG §2B3.1)
• 924(c) brandishing: +7 years consecutive
• Total: 15-19 years federal time (BOP has no parole — only 15% good-conduct credit)

For multiple-count Hobbs Act prosecutions (robbery rings), each 924(c) charge stacks separately — first conviction 7 years, second conviction 25 years, third conviction 25 years, etc. This is the "stacking" issue that produced devastating sentences before the First Step Act of 2018 modified the stacking rule (now stacking only applies after first conviction has become final, eliminating multi-count stacking within single prosecution for most cases).

Defense strategy when 924(c) charged:

• Challenge predicate "crime of violence" — significant Supreme Court litigation post-Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), has narrowed predicates.
• Challenge whether firearm was actually "used or carried" — mere possession is generally insufficient for 924(c).
• Challenge brandishing element if charged at higher tier.
• Plea negotiation to drop 924(c) — frequently the central focus of plea negotiations given mandatory consecutive nature.

Defensas sustantivas en robbery cases

Substantive defenses commonly available:

• Lack of theft element. Si no hay theft (attempted o completed), no hay robbery — even if assault/threat occurred. The state must prove unlawful appropriation con intent to deprive. Disputes over ownership, mistake of fact, claim of right may negate this element.
• Theft not "in the course of." If the assault/threat occurred independent of any theft activity — for example, a fight that escalates and then a victim drops items that are subsequently taken — the connection element may fail.
• Lack of intent to obtain/maintain control. The actor must have intent related to control of property. Pure assault or threat unconnected to property-related intent may not satisfy.
• Lack of bodily injury or threat. The state must prove either actual bodily injury (very low threshold but still required) or actual threat of imminent bodily injury or death. Mere harsh words or vague statements may not satisfy.
• No "deadly weapon" for aggravated charge. The state must prove use or exhibition of deadly weapon. Toy guns, fingers in pocket made to look like gun, words alone may not satisfy depending on facts. Even real firearms must be "used or exhibited" — mere possession in waistband not visible may not satisfy.
• No "serious bodily injury" for aggravated charge. The state must prove qualifying serious bodily injury — substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss/impairment. Less serious injuries (bruising, scratches, minor cuts) do not satisfy.
• Mistaken identity. Robbery cases frequently depend on eyewitness identification, often by victims under extreme stress and brief exposure. Eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable bajo extensive scientific literature. Identification challenges include suggestive procedures, cross-racial issues, weapon focus effect (attention to weapon rather than face), short observation time, high stress effects.
• Alibi. If the defendant can prove he was elsewhere at the time of the robbery, complete defense. Cell phone location data, surveillance video from other location, witnesses can establish.
• Insufficient evidence of identification. Even when victim purports to identify, ID may be challenged on circumstantial grounds — clothing description doesn't match, physical description varies between accounts, suspect doesn't match composite or surveillance, etc.
• Duress bajo Penal Code seccion 8.05. If the defendant participated under compulsion by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury — defense available except for murder.
• Necessity bajo seccion 9.22. If the conduct was necessary to avoid imminent harm greater than the harm caused.
• Renunciation bajo seccion 15.04. For attempt or conspiracy charges, voluntary and complete renunciation may be defense.

Procedural defenses y suppression motions

Robbery cases frequently involve multiple opportunities for procedural challenges:

• Suppression of identification bajo Wade/Stovall. Identification procedures that are "unduly suggestive" may be suppressed. Common challenges:
• Show-up identification (single suspect shown to victim) — frequently suggestive especially if defendant in handcuffs/police custody.
• Photo lineup with defendant photo significantly different from fillers — suggestive.
• Live lineup with defendant in distinctive clothing or position — suggestive.
• Repeated viewings before final identification — taints subsequent identifications.
• Suppression bajo Fourth Amendment. Searches of person, vehicle, residence, electronic devices that violate Fourth Amendment standards. Common issues:
• Stop and frisk without reasonable suspicion bajo Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
• Vehicle search without probable cause or valid exception.
• Residence search without warrant or valid exception.
• Cell phone search without warrant bajo Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
• Suppression bajo Miranda. Statements obtained sin proper warnings or after invocation of counsel/silence — must be suppressed. Especially relevant when defendant interrogated aggressively after arrest.
• Brady violations. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence. Robbery cases frequently involve undisclosed exculpatory evidence like alternate suspect information, witness statements pointing elsewhere, ID procedures showing uncertainty, etc.
• Discovery violations. Failure to disclose witness statements, surveillance video, forensic reports, prior reports involving same victim/witness — all subject to discovery demand.
• Speedy trial. Excessive delay between arrest and trial may violate Sixth Amendment bajo Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
• Severance. Multi-defendant or multi-count cases may benefit from severance bajo CCP Art. 36.09 or 36.10.

Forensic evidence challenges:

• DNA evidence. Chain of custody, contamination, mixture interpretation issues — frequently engaging independent DNA expert.
• Fingerprint evidence. Print quality, comparison methodology — fingerprint matches are subjective and subject to error.
• Cell phone forensics. Location data may be less precise than represented; phone may have been with someone else; tower triangulation has known limitations.
• Surveillance video. Quality, angle, lighting, comparison to defendant — frequently engaging video analysis experts.

Estrategia integral y preparacion de la defensa

Robbery case preparation typically includes:

• Immediate investigation. Scene visit, photography, surrounding business surveillance retrieval (many systems overwrite quickly — preservation request urgent), identification of additional witnesses not in police reports.
• Independent forensic review. DNA, fingerprints, firearms (ballistics if shots fired), trace evidence (fibers, shoe prints) — independent experts to evaluate state's findings and identify weaknesses.
• Eyewitness identification expert. Bajo Texas Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony on reliability of eyewitness identification is admissible. Factors bajo Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) — opportunity to view, attention, accuracy of prior description, certainty, time elapsed. Weapon focus effect, cross-racial issues, stress effects.
• Cell phone forensics. Defendant's phone location data, communication patterns, third-party comparison. Frequently engaging cell phone forensics expert.
• Surveillance video analysis. Public surveillance, commercial cameras, residential ring cameras, traffic cameras, ALPR data. Video may show alternate suspect, contradict victim's account, or support alibi.
• Background investigation of complainant. Prior criminal record, prior false allegations, motivation issues, civil litigation history.
• Parole eligibility modeling. For aggravated robbery con potential deadly weapon finding, modeling parole eligibility bajo different sentencing scenarios is essential. Half-time rule with DW finding vs. half-time with good-conduct credit without DW finding produces dramatically different results.
• Federal exposure assessment. If commercial robbery or other interstate commerce nexus, assess federal Hobbs Act exposure. Coordination con federal defense if dual sovereignty prosecution likely.
• Plea negotiation strategy. When trial risk is high, structured plea negotiation can produce sustancialmente better outcomes — particularly negotiating dismissal of deadly weapon finding (eliminating calendar-time rule), reduction from aggravated to regular robbery (eliminating 3g status and 1st degree exposure), or restitution-based dismissal in some cases.
• Mitigation development. Mental health history, substance abuse, trauma, employment, family circumstances — critical for punishment phase if trial occurs.
• Trial preparation. If plea no resulta en acceptable disposition, full trial preparation con voir dire, cross-examination, expert witnesses, jury argument.

L and L Law Group, PLLC ha defendido robbery cases a traves del spectrum — desde simple robbery con probation eligibility, hasta aggravated robbery con deadly weapon finding, hasta Hobbs Act federal cases. Los socios cofundadores Reggie London (Bar #24043514) y Njeri London (Bar #24043266) manejan personalmente cada caso en los nueve condados de DFW que servimos. Llame al (972) 370-5060 para una consulta gratuita y confidencial.