“As a general rule, the principle of stare decisis directs us to adhere not only to the holdings of our prior cases, but also to their explications of the governing rules of law.”
How later courts described this case
- “As a general rule, the principle of stare decisis directs us to adhere not only to the holdings of our prior cases, but also to their explications of the governing rules of law.”
- “[N]o division of this court will overrule a prior decision of this court . . . . ”
- “[I]t is not possible to commit robbery without also committing assault . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic
and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of
any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go
to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 23-CF-1054
RUBIN DELPHONSO HOLMAN, APPELLANT,
V.
UNITED STATES, APPELLEE.
Appeal from the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia
(2023-CF3-003958)
(Hon. Sean C. Staples, Trial Judge)
(Submitted November 21, 2024 Decided May 1, 2025 *)
Nancy E. Allen was on the brief for appellant.
Matthew M. Graves, United States Attorney at the time of submission,
Chrisellen R. Kolb, Elizabeth H. Danello, Kraig Ahalt, Raha Mokhtari, and Steven
B. Snyder, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.
Before MCLEESE, DEAHL, and HOWARD, Associate Judges.
*
The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished
Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published upon the court’s
grant of appellant’s unopposed motion to publish.
2
MCLEESE, Associate Judge: Appellant Rubin Delphonso Holman was
convicted of robbery, assault with intent to rob (AWIR), and simple assault. We
reverse Mr. Holman’s convictions for simple assault and AWIR because they merge
into Mr. Holman’s robbery conviction. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to
support Mr. Holman’s robbery conviction. We therefore affirm Mr. Holman’s
robbery conviction and remand the case for entry of a new judgment and
commitment order reflecting only the robbery conviction.
I. Factual Background
The evidence at trial included the following. At the time of the incident at
issue, Domini Dotson was riding on a Metro train. Mr. Holman and his friend,
Mr. Black, were riding on the same Metro car. Ms. Dotson did not know
Mr. Holman or Mr. Black. Mr. Black sat in the seat across the aisle from Ms. Dotson
while Mr. Holman sat in a seat diagonally across the aisle from Ms. Dotson.
Mr. Black passed Mr. Holman a bottle of lubricant. The two men then began
masturbating while staring at Ms. Dotson. At the next stop, Ms. Dotson got out of
that Metro car and boarded the next car. Ms. Dotson also called Metro and reported
the two men.
3
As Ms. Dotson was calling in the incident, she noticed that Mr. Holman had
stood up and was watching her through the window in the door that separated the
Metro cars. While Ms. Dotson waited for the Metro police to arrive, she “snuck a
picture” of Mr. Holman with her cell phone so that she “could show it to the police.”
Immediately after Ms. Dotson took the photograph, Mr. Holman entered her Metro
car through the door. Mr. Holman said something to Ms. Dotson, but she could not
hear him because she was listening to music through headphones.
Ms. Dotson asked Mr. Holman why he was following her, and Mr. Holman
responded, “[B]*tch, I’ll take your phone or b*tch, I’ll slap you.” During this
exchange, Ms. Dotson’s phone was sitting in her lap, and her hand was on top of the
phone.
Mr. Holman reached for Ms. Dotson’s phone, but Ms. Dotson “snatched [the
phone] back” before Mr. Holman could grab it. Mr. Holman then slapped
Ms. Dotson across her face and punched Ms. Dotson in the eye and on the side of
her head. Ms. Dotson tried to defend herself by kicking her legs and swinging her
arms. Another man on the train also intervened by jumping on Mr. Holman’s back
and placing him in a headlock. During the fight, Ms. Dotson’s phone was thrown
across the train.
4
As the fight continued, Mr. Black entered the Metro car and pretended to have
a gun. This caused Ms. Dotson and the bystander to stop fighting Mr. Holman, and
Ms. Dotson and the bystander began backing up. As they were backing up,
Mr. Holman retrieved Ms. Dotson’s phone from the floor of the Metro car.
After the train arrived at a station, Mr. Holman and Mr. Black left the train.
Ms. Dotson followed the two men off of the train in order to get her phone back.
Metro police officers were already on the platform. The officers asked Mr. Holman
to take a seat so that they could further investigate, but instead, Mr. Holman walked
away from the officers. The officers were able to stop Mr. Holman, and as one of
the officers attempted to restrain Mr. Holman, Mr. Holman removed Ms. Dotson’s
phone from his pocket and threw the phone onto the Metro tracks. A station
supervisor later retrieved Ms. Dotson’s phone from the tracks and returned the phone
to Ms. Dotson. As a result of the fight, Ms. Dotson had scratches on her chest and
face and received a concussion.
II. Merger
Mr. Holman argues that his convictions for simple assault and AWIR merge
with his conviction for robbery. We agree.
5
We decide “a claim of merger of convictions de novo to determine whether
there has been a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
Kaliku v. United States, 994 A.2d 765, 787 (D.C. 2010) (emphasis and internal
quotation marks omitted). To determine if two convictions merge, the court applies
the test set out in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), which looks at
“whether each [offense] requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Id. at
304. “In applying the test, we compare the statutorily []specified elements of the
offenses involved, and not the facts of the case at hand.” Simms v. United States,
634 A.2d 442, 447 (D.C. 1993).
We have already held that simple assault merges with AWIR. Hartley v.
United States, 117 A.3d 1035, 1039 (D.C. 2015). We thus accept the United States’
concession on that point.
The United States argues that robbery and AWIR do not merge because AWIR
requires proof of assault, whereas robbery does not, and robbery requires (among
other things) proof that property was taken. We have already held, however, that
robbery does require proof of assault. See, e.g., Norris v. United States, 585 A.2d
1372, 1374 (D.C. 1991) (in concluding that armed robbery and assault with a
dangerous weapon merge, court holds that “all of the elements of assault with a
dangerous weapon are included in armed robbery”; “Put another way, it is
6
impossible to commit armed robbery without first having committed assault with a
dangerous weapon.”); In re Z.B., 131 A.3d 351, 355 (D.C. 2016) (“[I]t is not possible
to commit robbery without also committing assault . . . .”).
The United States lays out an argument in favor of a contrary conclusion,
based on the idea that robbery can be committed by stealthy snatching that does not
constitute an assault. We do not consider this argument because as a division of this
court, we are bound by the holding of Norris. See generally, e.g., M.A.P. v. Ryan,
285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C. 1971) (“[N]o division of this court will overrule a prior
decision of this court . . . . ”) (footnote omitted). We recognize that Norris involved
armed robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon, whereas this case involves
robbery and AWIR. Nevertheless, we held in Norris that robbery requires proof of
assault, and we are not free to adopt a contrary approach in the present case. See,
e.g., Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 67 (1996) (“As a general rule, the
principle of stare decisis directs us to adhere not only to the holdings of our prior
cases, but also to their explications of the governing rules of law.”) (internal
quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
7
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
We review claims of insufficiency of the evidence “in the light most favorable
to sustaining the conviction, giving deference to the factfinder’s ability to weigh the
evidence and make credibility and factual determinations.” Peery v. United States,
849 A.2d 999, 1001 (D.C. 2004) (citation omitted). “An appellant making a claim
of evidentiary insufficiency bears the heavy burden of showing that the prosecution
offered no evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Dorsey v. United States, 154 A.3d 106, 112 (D.C. 2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Robbery requires “the intention to steal.” Alleyne v. United States, 327 A.3d
472, 480 (D.C. 2024) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Holman
argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to steal the phone.
This court recently clarified that the intent requirement is met either when a
defendant takes property in order “to permanently deprive” the owner of the property
or when a defendant “take[s] property with the purpose to return it only upon the
satisfaction of a condition . . . [the defendant has] no right to impose.” Id. at 481
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
There was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Holman
intended to steal Ms. Dotson’s phone. When Mr. Holman approached Ms. Dotson,
8
he demanded that she give him the phone or he would slap her. Mr. Holman then
reached for Ms. Dotson’s phone and used force when Ms. Dotson prevented him
from taking the phone. After the altercation, Mr. Holman put Ms. Dotson’s phone
in his pocket and walked off the train without returning it. Mr. Holman then threw
the phone onto the Metro tracks only after the police officers were trying to detain
him. A reasonable juror could infer from these facts that at the moment Mr. Holman
took the phone, he intended to permanently deprive Ms. Dotson of the phone. See,
e.g., Alleyne, 327 A.3d at 482-83 (sufficient evidence of intent to rob where
defendant forcefully took wallet to receive payment and disposed of wallet after
realizing victim could not pay).
Mr. Holman contends that he took the phone with the intent to force
Ms. Dotson to delete the picture that she had taken. There was no evidence,
however, directly supporting that contention, and the factfinder was not required to
infer that Mr. Holman’s objective was limited to forcing Ms. Dotson to delete photos
from the phone. Moreover, as we recently held in Alleyne, the intent to steal can be
established by evidence that the defendant took property with the intent to “to return
[the property] only upon the satisfaction of a condition . . . [the defendant has] no
right to impose.” 327 A.3d at 481 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the
9
evidence would be sufficient even if a factfinder could only have inferred that
Mr. Holman took the phone to force Ms. Dotson to delete the picture.
Finally, Mr. Holman relies on our decision in Gray v. United States, 155 A.3d
377 (D.C. 2017). We do not view Gray as supporting Mr. Holman’s argument in
the present case. In Gray, the defendant engaged in “a series of bizarre acts” before
taking money from the complainant. Id. at 380-81. We acknowledged that “a
reasonable jury could have found that [the defendant’s] acts of assault and his
theft . . . were unconnected, random acts.” Id. at 389. We held, however, that the
evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for robbery. Id. at
389-90. As we explained, “a reasonable jury could just as well have rejected this
theory: A reasonable jury could have inferred [from the evidence] . . . that [the
defendant] intended to put [the complainant] in fear” so that he could take her
property. Id. at 389.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse Mr. Holman’s convictions for simple
assault and AWIR, we affirm his conviction for robbery, and we remand the case for
the trial court to enter a new judgment and commitment order reflecting only the
robbery conviction. Because the trial court imposed concurrent sentences, there is
no need for resentencing. E.g., Smith v. United States, 306 A.3d 67, 73 (D.C. 2023).
So ordered.