State Court Robbery Convictions Are "Serious Violent Felonies" Under Federal Law

United States v. Snype, Docket Nos. 04-3299-cr(L), 04-3551-cr(CON), 04-4985-cr(CON) (March 17, 2006) (found here)

18 U.S.C. § 3559(1) mandates a sentence of life imprisonment for a person convicted of a "serious violent felony" who has on two separate prior occasions been convicted of "serious violent felonies."  18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1), in turn, defines "serious violent felony" as including (among other offenses) robbery, as described in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2111, 2113 and 2118. 

In Snype, the disrict court sentenced Snype to life imprisonment following his conviction for conspiracy to commit bank robbery and based on his prior separate New York State convictions for attempted second degree robbery, attempted first degree robbery, and first degree robbery (two counts).  On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the elements of Snype's prior New York State robbery convictions "parallel those required to establish robbery" under federal law, and that there was therefore "no question that New York State convictions for first and second degree robbery by definition qualify as serious violent felonies under § 3559(c)(2)(F)(i)."  Thus, the Second Circuit affirmed Snype's conviction.  (It also bears noting that the Second Circuit found that the district court's findings concerning Snype's prior convictions did not violate Apprendi, notwithstanding an acknowledgement that the continued viability of the Almendarez-Torres exception to Apprendi "has been questioned.")

Comments

[Danny stockwell]

yes i have a frend that was a cused of strong aremed robbery and asolt with a dedly wepon because he and another man was fhiting at a rest area of of I-77 and my frenid left because he did not wont any more trubul with the man so when he left the man called 911 and sayed he had just been robbed knowing that it was not true he prosede to tell his liys and now my frend is in jail for this is ther any information that you can give me that will better help me understand what mit happen to hem

[traci thomas]

yes, about 12 years ago i. was convicted of 2nd degree robbery. I felt that it should not have been , robbery as i got into a scuffle with a female store detective, it was a tug of war over my back pack and than her pulling my hair so i bit her to let go of my head of hair she pulled out and that was the extent of it all. i was never given a strike by the sentencing judge and its no where on my court paperwork. when i went to prison to serve my sentence of 6 years the prison said i did not have a strike and gave me half time. i remained free of trouble aftr parole all except one parole violation for a dirty test , other than that no trouble for 10 years. now i just got into trouble for a possession w/intent to transport for personal use (20 dollars of meth) due to not being able to cope with life because of mothers sudden death from a blow to the head after falling down a flight of stairs. so i relapsed and this was the end result. now this judge will not let me do prop 36 because of the serious felony of the robbery charge even though it was not that serious as no one was hurt and u must remain free of custody for 5 years in order to qualify for prop 36, but he is saying that because i had a violation of parole that that means i dont qualify for prop but i think it is only if you pick up any new felony or serious misdemeanor offense and not a parole violation for a dirty test. am i correct on my assumption in regards to this whole thing or is it entirely up to the sentencing judge??? need all of the input as i could go to jail for 5 years and lose both of my children for good if this happens, they need me and i of course need them, there has to be another alternative instead of going to prison again for a drug relapse... please help me i would be so greatful for any input on this matter for the sake of my children.. thank you anonymous from ventura,california (805)...