Aponte v. United States
1:16-cv-03511
S.D.N.Y.May 23, 2023Background
- Ramon Aponte pleaded guilty in 2003 to three counts including two § 924(c) counts based on robberies of drug dealers (Hobbs Act-related) and a § 843(b) count for use of a cellphone in furtherance of a planned robbery.
- The district court sentenced Aponte to consecutive terms totaling 432 months (7 years § 924(c) minimum; 25 years § 924(c) minimum; 4 years).
- Aponte filed a § 2255 petition (2016) arguing the § 924(c) predicates (attempted and conspiracy Hobbs Act robbery) were not crimes of violence. The district court denied relief in 2021 relying on Second Circuit precedent (McCoy).
- The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor (2022) held attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3), prompting the Second Circuit to vacate and remand for consideration of (1) retroactivity and (2) whether any valid predicate supports Aponte’s § 924(c) convictions.
- The district court (May 23, 2023) held Taylor applies retroactively to § 2255 petitions, but Aponte’s § 924(c) convictions remain valid because the record (charging instrument, plea agreement, plea colloquy) shows he pleaded to completed Hobbs Act robberies, which remain crimes of violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aponte) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Taylor on collateral review | Taylor should not apply retroactively to Aponte’s § 2255 motion | Government did not contest retroactivity (waived); Taylor is a new substantive rule and should apply | Taylor applies retroactively to § 2255 collateral review |
| Whether completed Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c) | Even completed Hobbs Act robbery should not qualify post-Taylor | Completed Hobbs Act robbery remains a valid predicate crime of violence | Completed Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c) (Second Circuit precedent controls) |
| Whether the court may look beyond the charging document to determine which Hobbs Act theory Aponte admitted to | Court limited to the information; S12 Information shows conspiracy/attempt predicates | Court may use the modified categorical approach and examine plea agreement and plea colloquy | Court may consider plea agreement and plea colloquy under the modified categorical approach |
| Whether Aponte actually pled to completed Hobbs Act robberies | Aponte only pleaded to conspiracy and attempted robbery, not completed robberies | Plea agreement, the S12 Information language, and Aponte’s allocution show completed robberies | Aponte admitted to and pled to completed Hobbs Act robberies for Counts One and Two; § 2255 denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022) (attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a § 924(c)(3) crime of violence)
- United States v. McCoy, 58 F.4th 72 (2d Cir.) (completed Hobbs Act robbery remains a § 924(c)(3)(A) crime of violence)
- Hall v. United States, 58 F.4th 55 (2d Cir.) (Teague retroactivity framework applied; Davis retroactive)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016) (Johnson announced a substantive rule that applied retroactively)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (new substantive rules generally apply retroactively)
- Hill v. United States, 890 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2018) (Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (when statute is divisible, courts may use the modified categorical approach)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (guidance on divisible statutes and categorical approach)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (documents permissible under the modified categorical approach to identify the offense of conviction)