Jonathan Wayne Lanaute pled guilty to bank robbery in the Middle District of Louisiana. During sentencing, the district court applied the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) based on two prior Louisiana convictions: one for armed robbery and one for attempted armed robbery. This enhancement raised Lanaute's offense level and criminal history category, resulting in a guideline range of 151 to 188 months. Lanaute appealed, arguing that his prior Louisiana armed robbery convictions did not qualify as crimes of violence because the state statute is a general intent crime that could theoretically be committed through reckless or negligent conduct, rather than requiring the intentional use of force.
The court applied the categorical approach, looking only to the statutory elements of the prior offenses rather than the specific facts of Lanaute's crimes. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a crime of violence must have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court acknowledged that while Louisiana armed robbery is a general intent crime, this classification does not automatically mean it can be committed recklessly. The court distinguished between general intent crimes that allow for recklessness and those that do not. To succeed, Lanaute needed to show a realistic probability that Louisiana courts apply the statute to conduct falling outside the federal definition of intentional force. The court examined the cases Lanaute cited, which involved threats of violence, and found they did not support his argument because the defendants in those cases clearly intended to use force or threats. The court concluded that Louisiana jurisprudence strongly suggests armed robbery inherently requires an offender to intentionally use force or the threat of force to accomplish the taking. Since Lanaute failed to demonstrate that the state applies the statute to reckless conduct, the prior convictions properly counted as crimes of violence.
The decision affirms the use of Louisiana armed robbery convictions as predicates for federal career-offender enhancements. It clarifies that the general intent status of a state crime does not preclude it from being a crime of violence if the elements inherently require intentional force. The case is remanded with instructions to affirm the district court's sentence. No open questions remain regarding the specific application of the force clause to Louisiana armed robbery in this context.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download