Friday, February 28, 2025

Virginia Robbery Is Not “Crime of Violence” Under Either Elements of Generic Definition of “Robbery”

US v. Parham: Parham pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In the PSR, his base offense level was enhanced due to a prior conviction for a “crime of violence” – convictions in Virginia for robbery and using a firearm during a robbery, treated as a single prior under the Guidelines. Parham objected, arguing that Virginia robbery was not a crime of violence under White due to the ability to commit the offense by “threatening to accuse the victim of engaging in sodomy.” The Government countered that White was limited to Armed Career Criminal Act situations because the enumerated offense of “robbery” in the Guidelines included the Virginia offense. In the alternative, the firearm offense was a crime of violence, too, leading to the same Guideline calculation. The district court agreed with the Government on the robbery conviction and ultimately imposed a sentence of 84 months in prison, in the middle of the resulting Guideline range.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Parham’s sentence. The court held that Virginia robbery does not match the generic definition of robbery in the Guidelines for the same reason that it does not meet the elements test – because it covers a broader amount of conduct than generic robbery. Specifically, it can be committed by threatening to accuse the victim of engaging in sodomy. With the robbery conviction addressed, the court concluded it could not address the firearm offense because the record did not show that the district court had made a ruling as to its status as a crime of violence. Parham’s case was remanded for further proceedings.

Congrats to the Defender Office in Eastern Virginia on the win!

No comments: