Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 93-1609
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PATRICK HENRY MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
( July 29, 1994 )
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Patrick Henry Martinez appeals his convictions for obstructing
commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and for using or carrying a
firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Finding
no error, we affirm.
Background
Convicted of five counts of obstructing commerce and five
firearm counts, Martinez appeals, challenging the sufficiency of
the evidence on the former counts and contending that trial on the
latter counts violated the constitutional guaranty against double

jeopardy.
The evidence establishes that Martinez committed five armed
robberies in Fort Worth, Texas between July 3 and August 8, 1992.
Three of the robberies involved Diamond Shamrock convenience stores
and two involved Church's and Edmundson's fried chicken outlets.
All of these establishments sold products which were manufactured
out-of-state and which were marketed by out-of-state vendors. The
robberies by Martinez caused the temporary closure of all of the
businesses save one which previously had been robbed by Martinez
and was closed permanently.
Martinez does not suggest that he did not commit the five
armed robberies; rather, he contends that his felonious conduct did
not obstruct interstate commerce and that the firearm charges were
multiplicitous.
Analysis
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict, asking only whether a rational
juror could have found guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.1
Martinez insists that the government failed to prove that his
robberies affected interstate commerce; we conclude otherwise. The
impact on interstate commerce need not be substantial to satisfy
the statutory requirement of the Hobbs Act.2 If the defendant's
conduct impacts the flow of interstate products, an effect on
1Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
2United States v. Stephens, 964 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1992).
2

interstate commerce occurs.3 In this case, Martinez' armed
robberies caused the interruption of commerce in several stores
dealing in out-of-state wares, resulting in the permanent closure
of one. This evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the
Martinez robberies obstructed interstate commerce.4
Martinez next contends that his concurrent prosecution for
using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence was
multiplicitous and violated the double jeopardy clause. We are not
persuaded. The double jeopardy clause prohibits multiple
punishments for the same offense.5 Whether different statutes
punish the same offense is determined by the test announced in the
landmark Blockburger6 opinion, mandating that we scrutinize the
elements of the two statutes at issue to determine whether "each
requires proof of a fact which the other does not."7 We conclude
that the obstruction of commerce by robbery proscription, and the
firearm proscription, demand proof of different elements and
therefore constitute separate offenses.
3United States v. Villarreal, 764 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 474 U.S. 904 (1985).
4See e.g., United States v. Sander, 615 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 (1980) (purchase of out-of-state
products sufficient interstate nexus); United States v. Richard,
No. 93-1326 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 1993) (unpublished opinion)
(temporary closure of store following robbery sufficient
interference with interstate commerce).
5United States v. Singleton, 16 F.3d 1419 (5th Cir. 1994).
6Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932); see also
United States v. Dixon, 113 S.Ct. 2849 (1993).
7Id. at 304.
3

The obstruction of commerce by robbery statute requires proof
of threats or force; it does not require evidence that the
defendant possessed a weapon.8 By contrast, the firearm statute
requires evidence that the defendant used or carried a weapon, but
does not require proof that the weapon was used to threaten or
force.9 Section 924(c)(1) further provides that the use or
carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence shall be punished
by imprisonment "in addition to the punishment provided for [by
the] crime of violence." As explained in Singleton, this language
underscores the congressional intent that section 924(c)(1)
punishments are to be imposed cumulatively with punishments for
underlying crimes of violence.10 Thus, both statutory comparison
and statutory construction make abundantly clear that concurrent
prosecutions for sections 1951 and 924(c)(1) violations do not
violate double jeopardy protection.
The convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
818 U.S.C § 1951 (robbery means the unlawful taking of
property from another by means of force or violence).
9See Singleton, 16 F.3d at 1423 (mere possession of firearm
satisfies section 924(c)(1)).
10Singleton, 16 F.3d at 1425.
4