Broadnax v. United States

Background

Kariem Broadnax pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and to using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a different Hobbs Act robbery. The firearm conviction was under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court sentenced him to 150 months on the robbery-conspiracy count and a mandatory consecutive 60 months on the firearm count, for a total of 210 months. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Broadnax then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a prisoner to seek relief from an allegedly unlawful sentence. He represented himself in filing the motion. He alleged that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge whether his offenses qualified as “crimes of violence” under the career-offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. He also argued that his § 924(c) conviction should be vacated because Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence. He requested an evidentiary hearing.

Ineffective-assistance claims

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Broadnax had to show both that his lawyers’ performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the alleged errors probably changed the result. The court found that he did not satisfy the first requirement, so it did not address prejudice.

The court explained that, when Broadnax was negotiating his plea and being sentenced in 2018 and 2019, the law concerning which offenses qualified as crimes of violence was developing. The cases Broadnax cited were not binding on federal district courts in the Second Circuit. The court also noted that the Second Circuit did not hold until 2022 that Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery did not qualify as crimes of violence under the relevant Sentencing Guidelines provision.

The court further relied on the plea agreement. Broadnax had originally faced several serious charges, including charges carrying the possibility of life imprisonment. His lawyers negotiated an agreement under which the parties stipulated to application of the career-offender provision and a Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months, which the court described as significantly lower than a range extending to life imprisonment. The court concluded that counsel’s decision not to challenge the career-offender provision was within the reasonable range of professional assistance.

Section 924(c) conviction

The court separately rejected Broadnax’s argument that his firearm conviction was unlawful. Section 924(c) imposes an additional mandatory sentence when a person uses, carries, or possesses a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. The statute defines a crime of violence to include a felony that has as an element the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property.

The court applied the “categorical approach,” which looks at the elements of the offense as legally defined rather than the specific facts of the defendant’s conduct. It relied on controlling Second Circuit precedent holding that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c). The court explained that Hobbs Act robbery requires obtaining or taking property against the victim’s will through actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury. It therefore held that Broadnax’s § 924(c) conviction complied with federal law.

Disposition

Judge Victor Marrero denied Broadnax’s § 2255 motion. The court also denied the request for an evidentiary hearing because the existing record conclusively showed that Broadnax was not entitled to relief. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Civil Case No. 22 Civ. 537 and terminate the pending motions. The court further stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Broadnax had not shown a denial of a constitutional right.