Hobbs Act Robbery Not Lesser-Included Offense of Carjacking

US v. Whitley: Whitley and his girlfriend were involved with the robbery of a Peloton delivery truck, with Whitley climbing into the truck when it stopped at 7-Eleven and pointing a gun at the driver. As a result, Whitley and the girlfriend were charged and convicted both with carjacking and Hobbs Act robbery. The district court rejected Whitley’s argument that the robbery count was a lesser included offense of carjacking and, under Double Jeopardy principles, he could not be convicted of both. He received a sentence of 168 months (the girlfriend’s carjacking conviction was vacated via a post-verdict motion for acquittal – she got a sentence of time served plus supervised release).

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Whitley’s convictions on both carjacking and robbery. At issue is whether the two offenses had the same elements under the Blockburger analysis. Whitley argued that they did, with carjacking having an additional intent requirement. The court disagreed, holding that they two offenses have different jurisdictional elements (which the Fourth Circuit has previously held is part of the Blockburger analysis). In essence, the court concluded that the jurisdictional element for carjacking is backward looking – had the vehicle in question moved across state lines in the past? – where the same element for Hobbs Act robbery was prospective – did the robbery obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce? That a carjacking may impact interstate commerce does not make the elements the same. The court also affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence underlying Whitley’s carjacking conviction, refusing to step into the debate of whether carjacking requires brandishing of a weapon “plus” something else, concluding that, in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence demonstrated the necessary intent in this case.