Supreme Court to Review Double Jeopardy Appeal from New York Man Convicted of Robbery

March 3, 2025 TruthUSA

A jury found Dwayne Barrett guilty of several federal law infractions. Consequently, he received a sentence of 90 years in prison.

On March 3, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Constitution’s double jeopardy protection permits an individual to be penalized for two distinct offenses arising from the same robbery.

In particular, the petitioner, Dwayne Barrett, is challenging the legality of simultaneous sentencing for both brandishing a firearm and utilizing that firearm to cause a death during a robbery.

The ruling in Barrett v. United States was issued as an unsigned order without further commentary, and none of the justices dissented. For the case to advance to oral arguments, at least four of the nine justices must concur with the petition.

The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution asserts that no person shall “be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same crime.

The petition submitted on October 15, 2024, details that Barrett served as the driver for a group of robbers. In 2011, while he was absent, one of his co-defendants fatally shot a man who had thrown a bag of cash from a moving vehicle.

A federal jury in the Southern District of New York found Barrett guilty of numerous offenses under the Hobbs Act and additional federal laws, resulting in a sentence of 90 years imprisonment.

The Hobbs Act is a federal law that prohibits both actual and attempted robbery or extortion that affects interstate or foreign commerce, as well as conspiracies to commit such acts.

Barrett was determined to have driven a co-defendant to the crime scene, violating Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1951, as per a brief submitted on January 17 by then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.

For his involvement in the criminal operations, the jury found Barrett guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and two counts of Hobbs Act robbery.

Barrett was also convicted of one count of “murder using a firearm during a crime of violence,” which violates Section 924(j) of Title 18. Additionally, he faced three counts of the lesser charge of “carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence,” which contravenes Section 924(c) of Title 18.

In criminal law, an included offense is a lesser crime that occurs during the commission of a more serious offense. For instance, if a burglar breaks a window to enter a property from which he steals, the act of breaking the window can be charged separately as vandalism or destruction of property.

In his petition, Barrett requests that the Supreme Court clarify that a defendant can be held criminally accountable under Section 924(j) or Section 924(c), but not both.

“The only significant distinction is that section 924(j) requires demonstration of one additional element: the death,” states the petition. “Thus, a violation of section 924(c) constitutes a lesser included offense of section 924(j).”

“Congress could have allowed for consecutive sentences for violations under sections 924(c) and 924(j) if it had chosen to do so. However, the clear language of section 924(j) suggests no such intention,” the petition argues.

The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits support this position, whereas the Second Circuit does not. During Barrett’s appeal, the Second Circuit concluded that 924(c) and 924(j) are “distinct offenses for which Congress has explicitly permitted cumulative punishments,” according to the petition.

Even though “Barrett’s [Section] 924(c) crime is a lesser-included offense of his [Section] 924(j) crime,” the circuit court determined in May 2024 that “Congress intended to allow cumulative sentences for a defendant convicted on related [Section] 924(c) and [Section] 924(j) counts of conviction.”

The petition calls for the Supreme Court to “address the division regarding this frequently raised and crucial query, wherein the answer can imply two separate prison terms—one of ‘15 years’ followed by another of ‘30 years’—instead of one single sentence of ‘not more than 15 years.’”

Prelogar requested the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal, asserting that double jeopardy concerns could be managed in lower courts.

“The district court could organize the sentence—or, as is consistent with its established practice in such cases, the government could request the dismissal of one of the relevant charges—to avert any constitutional issue or render it moot.”

Prelogar also acknowledged that it has been the longstanding position of the federal government that cumulative penalties under Section 924(c) and (j) for the same firearm usage are not allowed.

This case is anticipated to be reviewed during the Supreme Court’s new term commencing in October.

The Epoch Times reached out for comments from Barrett’s attorney, Matthew Larsen of New York City, and the U.S. Department of Justice, but did not receive any responses by the time of publication.

Source link