Hobbs Act robbery is a federal charge for taking, or attempting to take, someone else’s personal property by force, violence or fear when the robbery affects interstate commerce. The charge comes from 18 U.S.C. § 1951. A robbery that happened entirely in California is not automatically a federal case, but the alleged commerce connection also does not require the person or property to have crossed a state line during the incident. The indictment and the government’s stated theory matter.
What must the robbery allegation show?
Under § 1951(b)(1), robbery involves an unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from a person or in another person’s presence, against that person’s will, through actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury. The statute includes specified threats of immediate or future injury to a person or property. The government’s proof must connect the alleged means to the victim’s parting with the property; the Ninth Circuit’s robbery model instruction 9.8 sets out that question along with knowing conduct and the commerce element. An accusation of a threat, by itself, does not answer whether every part of the charged robbery can be proved.
The word “Hobbs” identifies this federal statute; it does not replace the details of the actual count. A California robbery accusation or a federal bank-robbery accusation raises different statutory questions. Read the cited law and count number in the charging papers before assuming that advice about another robbery law applies to a § 1951 case.
| If the count alleges… | The additional question to examine |
|---|---|
| Completed robbery | What property does the government say was obtained, from whom or whose presence, by what force or fear, and how did that alleged robbery affect commerce? |
| Attempted robbery | What acts does the government say went beyond preparation? Instruction 9.8 requires a substantial step that strongly corroborates the intent to commit the robbery. The government need not show a completed taking to allege an attempt. |
These are questions for evaluating proof, not a conclusion that a particular charge will succeed or fail. Section 1951(a) expressly includes both robbery and attempt.
How much of an interstate-commerce connection is required?
The federal element can be met by a slight, direct or indirect effect, including a probable or potential effect; an actual interruption of interstate shipments is not always required. But the asserted effect cannot be purely speculative. The Ninth Circuit’s model instructions 9.8–9.9 and their case-law comments distinguish those points. The government does not have to prove that the accused knew or intended the commerce effect. The alleged target, property, business activity and supporting records therefore matter more than an assumption based only on where the incident occurred.
For example, the government may identify a business’s money or goods and explain how the alleged robbery would affect its commercial activity. That is a possible theory, not proof that every robbery of a business meets the element. If the allegation instead concerns drugs or drug proceeds, instruction 9.8’s discussion of the Supreme Court’s drug-dealer ruling supplies a different, limited route; the facts still need to be identified rather than guessed from the charge label.
What does the 20-year figure mean?
Section 1951(a) authorizes a fine, imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both for its offense. That is a statutory ceiling for the § 1951 count, not an expected sentence. The subsection states no general minimum prison term for this standalone base offense. Other counts and applicable sentencing law may change the exposure, so neither the ceiling nor the absence of a general minimum predicts probation, prison time or an outcome in a particular case.
If you have charging papers, keep the complete indictment or complaint, each count and cited statute, the alleged dates, property and victim information, full communications, video, witness accounts, and any business or transaction records the government uses for the commerce connection. Preserve them without editing or contacting a witness about testimony. Those materials help counsel distinguish a completed taking from an attempt and test the actual § 1951 theory rather than a shorthand label. To discuss the charge and the available records with the Law Offices of David S. Chesley, call (800) 755-5174.