We are on the horns of a conundrum. Folks, help us out here:

The crime of robbery (PC 29.02), it appears, requires (1) intent to take something, and (2) threat or bodily injury. So, once the threat is made or injury is caused, and the offender intends to take something, the crime of robbery is complete, even if your offender didn't manage to actually take something. Seems reasonable: if you scuffle with a mugger who runs away without taking anything, it's still a robbery.

So, what about attempted robbery? It seems to me that, if you don't have that threat or bodily injury, you have an attempted theft, not an attempted robbery. And since they don't have to complete the theft in order to complete the crime of robbery, why would you ever charge attempted robbery?

We've uncovered a case, In the matter of A.B., 868 S.W.2d 938, from Forth Worth, which indicates that attempted robbery is a thing, but I'm not convinced; A.B. cites two cases for its proposition that "there have been convictions for attempted robbery in this state": Van v. State, 525 S.W.2d 199, and Hubert v. State, 652 S.W.2d 585. Van is a per curiam table opinion, basically one entry in a table of cases, so there's no case to read there.

Hubert, by contrast, appears to contain a typo: the first paragraph states, "This is an appeal from two jury convictions, one for robbery, the other for attempted robbery." Reading on, however, reveals that the defendant was convicted of robbery and aggravated robbery. For the remainder of the case, the charge is referred to as "aggravated", not "attempted", for one thing, and for another, if it was "attempted", the court failed to reform an illegal sentence: the case states that Hubert received two 12-year sentences for his convictions, which would exceed the penalty range for the hypothetical third-degree offense of "attempted robbery". And this is the case cited by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals for the proposition that "people have been convicted for attempted robbery before." Apparently some clerks judges haven't actually been reading the precedents they cite.

So I'm leaning toward "no", that attempted robbery is not a thing. But can anyone provide me with deeper insight? I can go into the facts of our individual case if you'd like, but I don't want to waste everyone's time with that if I don't have to.

Any attempted offense requires an act, more than mere preparation, that tends to lead to, but fails in the commission of the offense. Attempted robbery is very real. Say an unarmed assailant comes to a store with a printed card to pass to the clerk that says, "don't make any moves - I have a bomb and will set it off. Give me all your money". He walks into the store, but the police, having been tipped off, meet him at the counter, and he is arrested. No threat, no lunging for the case. But he walked in ready , and had it not been for intervention, he would have robbed the place ( and I agree, he doesn't have to get the $$$$$$).

Whaddya think?

MDK - your response just highlights the original issue: Why, under your facts, is that not a completed offense of "robbery" rather than attempted robbery? If Jason is correct that robbery means the INTENT to take something, and the THREAT, then under your facts you have a robbery, not merely an attempt. What ADDITIONAL act or fact is necessary to proving the completed offense as opposed to the attempt (tends to lead to but FAILS to complete...)?

Historically, I have looked at the cases during intake and if there is only the intent to take, and not an actual taking, charge as an assault, or as a theft. Most of the cases I have looked at were ones in which there was a weapon involved, so the assault was an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, so you still have a felony.

But no threat was ever conveyed in MDK's scenario. He walks in with a note, but he never gives the note to anyone. It's like walking up to someone with a gun, intending to rob them, but getting tackled by the police before you actually do so.

Thank you Andrea - I should have made it clear he never passed the note or said anything. Inartful on my part.........

My reply assumed the note was passed. If no threat is made, then obviously you do not have a robbery.

But you still have an attempted theft....

How do you calculate the $ for the theft?

On MDK's scenario, why file an attempt case and take on the issue of "mere preparation" and the affirmative defense of renunciation?
Assuming you can prove intent, the printed note "is specially designed, made, or adapted for use in the commission of an offense" thereby making it a "criminal instrument" of a 2nd degree robbery and you have a 3rd degree possession of a criminal instrument under 16.01.
I don't know if this has any relevance to the actual case that started the discussion but, in my experience, the fewer issues the better.

Well, to follow up: the jury found the defendant guilty on the robbery and sentenced him to the minimum, recommending probation, which frankly we would have offered him in the first place. The facts:

One fine evening Defendant sprints into a convenience store at high speed and vaults over the counter. At that point he is startled by the clerk (apparently he didn't see her) and puts her in a headlock. She screams, customers from outside rush in to help, at which point Defendant gives up and becomes cooperative. He says to everyone around him, "I just wanted cigarettes." So, right there we have the completed offense of Robbery: intent to take something, and he hurt someone while doing it.

The initial question came about when some folks wondered whether the Robbery charge would confuse the jury, since he vaulted over the counter but never took anything.