Texas Penal Code §29.02 Robbery — Charges and Defense Strategies

Statutory elements — § 29.02(a)

Texas Penal Code § 29.02(a) provides that a person commits robbery if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, the person: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

Four elements the state must prove. (1) The defendant was in the course of committing theft. (2) The defendant acted with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property. (3) The defendant either caused bodily injury or threatened/placed another in fear of imminent injury. (4) The mental state was intentional, knowing, or (for injury only) reckless.

"In the course of committing theft." Penal Code § 29.01(1) defines this phrase to include conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft. The phrase reaches conduct before the actual taking (an attempted snatch) AND conduct after the taking but during flight (a struggle with a pursuer). This is broader than many defendants assume.

"Bodily injury" element under (a)(1). Penal Code § 1.07(a)(8) defines bodily injury as physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. The threshold is low — a bruise, a scratch, a moment of pain all qualify. Pain without visible injury can satisfy the element. Under (a)(1) the mens rea is intentionally, knowingly, OR recklessly — reckless injury during a theft attempt satisfies the element.

"Threat or placement in fear" element under (a)(2). Reaches verbal threats ("give me your wallet or I'll hurt you"), gestures or postures that communicate threat (raising a fist, displaying a weapon-shape under clothing), or any conduct intended to place the victim in fear of imminent injury. The fear must be of IMMINENT injury — future threats do not satisfy the element, though they may support other charges.

Mens rea distinction. (a)(1) injury offense reaches intentional, knowing, OR reckless conduct. (a)(2) threat offense reaches only intentional or knowing conduct — recklessness does not satisfy threat. This distinction sometimes matters in cases involving panicked or confused defendant behavior.

Penalty range and the second-degree-felony framework

§ 29.02(b) makes robbery a second-degree felony. Penal Code § 12.33 sets the punishment range: 2 to 20 years TDCJ plus a fine up to $10,000.

Probation availability. Robbery is generally probation-eligible — it is not categorically excluded by 3g designation for adult-victim cases. § 29.02 offenses where the bodily injury was minor or the threat was non-weapon-based often produce probated outcomes for first-offense defendants. Deferred adjudication is also available.

3g status considerations. § 29.02 is NOT on the standard 3g offenses list under CCP Article 42A.054 — aggravated robbery under § 29.03 is on the list, but simple robbery is not. Parole eligibility under § 29.02 follows the standard schedule (one-quarter of the sentence served, with good-conduct credit).

Distinction from aggravated robbery (§ 29.03). Aggravated robbery — covered in the next post in this series — elevates § 29.02 to first-degree felony (5 to 99 years or life) when the offense includes deadly-weapon use, serious bodily injury, or specific victim categories (disabled persons, persons 65 or older). Where the facts could support either § 29.02 or § 29.03, the charging decision is one of the most consequential in the case.

Restitution. Restitution for the property taken (or attempted to be taken) and for any medical costs from bodily injury is mandatory in most robbery cases. The restitution amount can affect the case posture; defense should engage with the victim and prosecutor on restitution early.

Habitual offender exposure. A defendant with prior felony convictions facing § 29.02 charges encounters habitual-offender enhancements under §§ 12.42-12.43. Two prior felony convictions can elevate the punishment range to 25 to 99 years or life. The habitual-offender consequences make robbery charges particularly serious for defendants with prior records.

Federal overlap. 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) and § 2113 (federal bank robbery) reach certain robbery conduct affecting interstate commerce or involving federally-protected institutions. Federal prosecution carries different sentencing exposure and is the dominant forum for bank-robbery cases.

The "course of theft" element — broader than defendants expect

§ 29.01(1) defines "in the course of committing theft" to include conduct in an attempt to commit theft, during the commission of theft, or in immediate flight after an attempt or commission. The breadth of this definition is one of the most-litigated elements in real robbery prosecutions.

Attempt-stage conduct. A defendant who attempts to grab a purse but is interrupted before the taking succeeds is "in the course of committing theft" for § 29.02 purposes. The use of force or threat at this stage — even before any property is taken — satisfies the element. A "no taking" defense to the underlying theft does not defeat the robbery charge.

During-the-taking conduct. The standard configuration — taking property while using force or threat. This is the prototypical robbery and presents the fewest course-of-theft litigation issues.

Immediate-flight conduct. A defendant who takes property without force but then uses force or threat during flight is in the course of committing theft and is therefore subject to robbery charges. The "snatch-then-fight-pursuer" pattern: defendant takes a wallet from a counter without confrontation, but punches the store owner who chases them down the street. Robbery, not just theft, because the force occurred in immediate flight.

The temporal limit. "Immediate flight" has a temporal limit — once the defendant has reached a place of safety and the connection to the underlying theft has broken, subsequent force is generally not in the course of theft. A defendant arrested days later who fights with police is not committing robbery; they may be committing assault on a peace officer, but not robbery. The line between "immediate flight" and "later separate conduct" is fact-specific and contestable.

The "completed theft" issue. Courts have generally held that a theft is not "completed" for course-of-theft purposes until the defendant has reached a place of relative safety with the property. A defendant who has taken property but is still in the vicinity remains in the course of committing theft. The exact boundary matters in cases where post-taking conduct occurs hours later but in the general area.

Defense framing on the element. Where the force or threat is separated in time, location, or causation from the underlying theft attempt, the course-of-theft element is contestable. Defense should examine the temporal and spatial relationship between the force and the underlying theft.

The two means of robbery — injury vs. threat

§ 29.02(a) provides two alternative means of committing robbery. Each has distinct elements and distinct defense angles.

(a)(1) Bodily injury robbery. The state must prove the defendant caused bodily injury (under § 1.07(a)(8) — physical pain, illness, or impairment) in the course of committing theft. The injury can be minor; a bruise, scratch, or moment of pain satisfies the element. The mens rea is intentional, knowing, or reckless. This is the broader of the two routes; reckless injury during a chaotic taking can satisfy.

(a)(2) Threat robbery. The state must prove the defendant intentionally or knowingly threatened or placed another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, in the course of committing theft. The mens rea here is narrower — intentional or knowing only. The fear must be of IMMINENT injury, not future injury. The threat can be verbal, gestural, or implied by display of a weapon-like object.

Display of "what appears to be" a weapon under (a)(2). A defendant who displays a real or fake weapon (or even an object held in a way that suggests a concealed weapon) can satisfy the threat element. The victim's reasonable fear is the standard — not the actual lethality of the object. This is where the line between robbery (§ 29.02) and aggravated robbery (§ 29.03, with actual deadly weapon) sometimes blurs. Defense framing should examine what was actually displayed and whether the victim's fear was reasonable.

"Demand" cases. A defendant who hands a note to a teller saying "give me cash" or "this is a robbery" can satisfy the threat element through implied threat of harm. The note can be the threat; no verbal communication is required. Defense framing examines the exact content of the note and whether it conveyed a threat of imminent injury.

Mental-state defense. Where the defendant's mental state was intoxicated, panicked, or confused, the intent-or-knowledge element of the threat offense may be contestable. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense (§ 8.04) but can affect the mens-rea analysis in close cases.

Defendant's subjective awareness of the victim. Where the defendant did not see, did not understand, or did not have a clear mental state about the victim's presence, the intentional-knowing requirement for the threat means is contestable. The (a)(1) injury route — which reaches reckless conduct — does not have this defense.

How robbery cases actually arise in Texas

Texas § 29.02 prosecutions cluster around several recognizable patterns.

Convenience-store and gas-station robberies. Defendant enters a retail establishment, takes cash or merchandise, uses force or threat (verbal, gestural, or weapon display). Surveillance cameras are standard; identification is generally solid. Charging often runs § 29.02 versus § 29.03 depending on whether a weapon was visible. Defense focus shifts to identification (clothing changes, mask use, alibi) and to the simple-vs-aggravated charging decision.

Snatch-and-grab robberies. Defendant grabs property (purse, phone, jewelry) from a victim and uses force or threat in the process or in immediate flight. The victim's reaction (resisting, pursuing) often determines the force level. Defense framing on whether the force was during the taking versus during a separate post-taking encounter is critical.

Drug-deal robberies. Defendant arranges a drug purchase and instead robs the dealer. The victim is often reluctant to report (given their own criminal exposure), but reports still happen, especially in shootings or serious injuries. Defense framing on the victim's credibility and prior conduct is significant.

Domestic-violence-adjacent robberies. Property taken during a domestic-violence incident — phones, keys, wallets, identification. Charges often run alongside assault (§ 22.01) or family-violence offenses. The robbery elevation can substantially worsen exposure compared to assault alone.

Strong-arm robberies of vulnerable victims. Targeting elderly persons, intoxicated victims, or lone individuals. The aggravated-robbery enhancement under § 29.03(a)(3) for victims over 65 or disabled applies; charging decisions often run aggravated.

Carjacking cases. Taking a vehicle by force or threat is robbery (§ 29.02) basic, often aggravated robbery (§ 29.03) when a weapon is displayed. Federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 is available for certain carjacking conduct.

Home-invasion robberies. Charged as robbery (§ 29.02) plus burglary of habitation (§ 30.02). The two statutes both apply; charging typically runs both. First-degree felony burglary charges often run alongside robbery counts.

"Failed robbery" cases. Defendant attempts but does not succeed in taking property (interrupted by alarm, victim resistance, third-party intervention). The attempt-stage course-of-theft conduct still supports robbery charges; the absence of completed theft does not defeat the robbery.

Defense strategy — course of theft, identification, the aggravation analysis

The defense template on a routine § 29.02 case has several distinct levers.

1. Identification. The most common contestable element. Robbery prosecutions often rely on victim or witness identification, sometimes from a single brief encounter under stressful conditions. Photo-array suggestiveness, show-up identification problems, masking/clothing changes, and cross-racial identification reliability are all defense focal points. DNA, fingerprint, and cell-site evidence (where available) are independent corroboration but not always present.

2. Course-of-theft element. Where the force or threat is separable from the underlying theft (different time, different location, different motivation), the robbery charge can be defeated even if the underlying theft is provable. Defense framing on the temporal and spatial separation matters.

3. Bodily-injury or threat element. Where the victim's injury claims are uncorroborated, where the alleged threat was not clearly communicated, or where the victim's reaction does not support reasonable fear of imminent injury, the operative element of the offense is contestable. Medical records, body-camera footage of victim reports, and the victim's contemporaneous statements all matter.

4. Aggravation analysis (robbery vs aggravated robbery). The single most consequential charging decision in a robbery case. If the state can prove deadly-weapon use, serious bodily injury, or a protected-victim status, the charge becomes § 29.03 (first-degree, 5-99 years). If not, § 29.02 (second-degree, 2-20 years). Defense priority is contesting the aggravator at the charging stage and at trial.

5. Identification of the property taken. Where the alleged property is small, generic, or not clearly identified as having been in the victim's possession, the underlying theft is contestable. Without a provable theft, robbery does not stand.

6. Self-defense or defense of property posture. Where the defendant used force in a legitimate defensive posture that the state has reframed as offensive force, Chapter 9 justifications can apply. These defenses are rare in robbery cases but available in specific factual configurations.

7. Plea-negotiation toward theft or assault. Where robbery is the indicted charge but the elements are weak, defense can sometimes negotiate to the underlying theft (§ 31.03) or assault (§ 22.01) without the robbery elevation. The penalty drops dramatically; even a state jail felony theft is a substantial downgrade from a second-degree robbery.

8. Habitual-offender management. For defendants with prior felony records, the habitual-offender exposure under §§ 12.42-12.43 is the dominant sentencing concern. Defense focus shifts to challenging the predicate convictions, the chronology requirements, and the enhancement's applicability.

First 30 days — what to do, in order

Days 1–3. Retain counsel before any further interview. Robbery cases produce intensive law-enforcement investigation including custodial interviews, photo-array identifications, and search-warrant executions. Do not speak with police, do not consent to any lineup or in-person identification, do not allow searches without counsel. Counsel arranges pretrial release — robbery is generally bond-eligible but bond amounts are substantial.

Days 3–10. Counsel issues preservation letters for surveillance evidence — venue CCTV, neighboring-business cameras, traffic cameras, ride-share dashcams, body-worn cameras from responding officers. Surveillance retention is typically 30 days; early preservation is essential. Counsel obtains the offense report, any victim statements, and any photo-array procedures used for identification.

Days 10–20. Counsel reviews the identification evidence carefully — the suggestiveness of any procedures, the reliability factors under Manson v. Brathwaite, and any cross-racial identification considerations. Independent forensic evidence (cell-site location, DNA, fingerprints) is examined. The course-of-theft and aggravation-analysis posture is developed.

Days 20–30. Counsel opens dialogue with the prosecutor on charging configuration. The critical question: § 29.02 (second-degree) versus § 29.03 (first-degree)? Defense priority is contesting any aggravator that supports the higher charge. For first-offense defendants with simple-robbery exposure, probation eligibility and restitution-based plea posture are developed. For defendants with prior records, the habitual-offender exposure analysis drives the negotiation.

Robbery cases move quickly to indictment in most Texas counties. Counsel selected within the first 30 days can develop the identification challenge, the aggravation contest, and the charging posture before formal charging hardens. Counsel selected later inherits a case where the most consequential decisions have already been made by the state.