Page 34 - TPA Journal Sept Oct 2021

future injury. any obstruction, delay, or other effect on commerce,
even if small,” and defines “commerce” to its
Avalos-Sanchez pleaded guilty to Count Three and constitutional limit. For the Government to satisfy the
entered a written plea agreement with the Government. Act’s commerce element, then, “it is enough that a
At his re-arraignment, AvalosSanchez admitted that he defendant knowingly stole or attempted to steal drugs
had conspired with other defendants with the intent to or drug proceeds.”
steal and sell controlled substances. Avalos-Sanchez
also admitted that he was involved in the June 6 robbery At the re-arraignment hearing, the Government orally
and that, even though no drugs were stolen, the intent presented the factual basis for Avalos-Sanchez’s guilty
had been to enter the residence and steal drugs believed plea. Avalos-Sanchez admitted he knew of the unlawful
to be there. Avalos-Sanchez admitted that he and his purpose of the conspiracy to rob the home for
crew believed that hundreds of pounds of marijuana or controlled substances and joined in it willingly. He also
five-plus kilograms of cocaine were stored at the admitted involvement in the June 6 robbery. And,
targeted residence. Avalos-Sanchez denied that he importantly, he admitted that he intended to steal
attended or knew the plan for the June 7 attempted drugs—the hundreds of pounds of marijuana or five-
robbery. But he did not refute the Government’s plus kilograms of cocaine believed to have been there.
statement that a June 7 telephone call among many of Based on Avalos-Sanchez’s admissions, the
the crew alerted Avalos-Sanchez and others to the Government satisfied the Hobbs Act’s commerce
planned robbery that day. The district court sentenced element, and there was a sufficient factual basis to
Avalos-Sanchez to 87 months in prison. Avalos-Sanchez accept Avalos-Sanchez’s guilty plea.
timely appealed, challenging his guilty-plea conviction
and sentence. Avalos-Sanchez’s admissions at re-arraignment,
standing alone, support his conviction under the Hobbs
Avalos-Sanchez raises two issues on appeal. First, he Act in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v.
contends that the factual basis supporting his guilty plea United States. There, the defendant was charged with
is insufficient as a matter of law because it does not two Hobbs Act violations for robbing drug dealers’
establish an effect on interstate commerce, an element homes, although neither drugs nor proceeds from drug
of a Hobbs Act robbery. Second, he argues that his sales were stolen. Even though the defendant procured
guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing because he no drugs or drug money, the Supreme Court held that
did not know that the factual basis for his guilty plea the prosecution met its burden by introducing evidence
was insufficient. We address, and reject, each in turn. that Taylor’s gang intentionally targeted drug dealers to
obtain drugs and drug proceeds.18 When “robberies
Before accepting a guilty plea, a district court must first were committed with the express intent to obtain illegal
determine there is a factual basis for the plea. This drugs and the proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs,”
factual basis must be in the record and “sufficiently this “is sufficient to meet the commerce element of the
specific.” To analyze the sufficiency of the factual basis Hobbs Act.” Like the defendant in Taylor, Avalos-
under plain-error review, we must first determine if the Sanchez did not obtain drugs or drug proceeds from the
district court erred in accepting Avalos-Sanchez’s guilty June 6 home robbery. More importantly, like the
plea. To do so, we compare the elements of the crime for defendant in Taylor, Avalos-Sanchez expressly intended
which Avalos-Sanchez was convicted to the conduct he to obtain illegal drugs and proceeds from drugs from
admitted in the factual basis. the June 6 robbery. For purposes of the Hobbs
Act’s commerce element, it does not matter whether
First, we consider the elements of the crime. A Hobbs Avalos-Sanchez’s robbery in fact affected interstate
Act violation has two elements: (1) robbery, extortion, commerce. The prosecution need only show that
or an attempt or conspiracy to rob or extort (2) that Avalos-Sanchez committed a robbery with the intent to
affects commerce. Avalos-Sanchez only challenges the obtain controlled substances, which it did when Avalos-
commerce element. The Hobbs Act’s language is Sanchez admitted exactly that in his re-arraignment
“unmistakably broad,” however, and the scope of its hearing.
commerce element is no exception: The Act “reaches

30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal