Aponte v. United States

Background

Ramon Aponte filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence after direct review. He asked the court to vacate two 2003 convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which imposes penalties for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence.

The two challenged counts concerned robberies at two New York City apartments. The charging document described each count using language referring to a conspiracy to rob, an attempted robbery, and an actual robbery. Aponte pleaded guilty in 2003. The court imposed consecutive sentences of seven years on Count One, 25 years on Count Two, and four years on Count Three, for a total of 432 months.

Aponte previously challenged the convictions in 2016. The court denied that challenge in 2021 because, under then-controlling Second Circuit precedent, attempted Hobbs Act robbery could qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c). The Supreme Court later held in United States v. Taylor that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify. The Second Circuit vacated the 2021 ruling and sent the matter back for further proceedings.

Issues and arguments

The Second Circuit directed the district court to decide two questions: whether Taylor applied retroactively to post-conviction challenges and whether any valid crime-of-violence predicate still supported Aponte’s § 924(c) convictions.

The government did not argue that Taylor was barred from applying retroactively. The district court nevertheless addressed the issue and concluded that Taylor applies retroactively to § 2255 cases. The court reasoned that Taylor narrowed the range of conduct punishable under § 924(c) and therefore announced a new substantive rule.

The parties disagreed about the predicates for the two convictions. The government acknowledged that conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery were no longer valid predicates, but argued that completed Hobbs Act robbery remained a valid crime of violence. Aponte argued that he pleaded guilty only to conspiracy and attempted robbery, and alternatively argued that completed Hobbs Act robbery was no longer a valid predicate.

Court’s analysis

The court held that completed Hobbs Act robbery remains categorically a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), relying on Second Circuit precedent issued after Taylor.

The court then applied the modified categorical approach. This approach permits a court to review a limited set of conviction-related documents when a statute lists alternative offenses, in order to determine which offense formed the basis of the conviction. The court considered the S12 Information, Aponte’s written plea agreement, and the transcript of his plea hearing. It did not rely on the presentence investigation report for this purpose.

The court concluded that the S12 Information alone did not establish whether Aponte had pleaded guilty to conspiracy, attempted robbery, or completed robbery. The plea agreement, however, described both challenged counts as involving “a robbery.” During the plea hearing, the court and the government described Counts One and Two as based on actual robberies, and Aponte admitted facts showing that both robberies occurred. The court contrasted Count Three, which involved a planned robbery that did not occur, with Counts One and Two, which concerned completed robberies.

Holding and disposition

The court held that Aponte pleaded guilty to completed Hobbs Act robberies for both challenged § 924(c) counts. Because completed Hobbs Act robbery remained a valid crime-of-violence predicate, the court held that the convictions were still supported and denied Aponte’s petition.

The government also argued that Aponte’s claims were procedurally barred because he had not raised them on direct appeal. The court did not decide that issue because its conclusions about retroactivity and the valid predicates resolved the petition.