Factual background
In 2011 and 2012, Dwayne Barrett acted as the getaway driver of a robbery crew. In December 2011, Barrett and his two accomplices, Jermaine Dore and Taijay Todd, planned to rob a van carrying $10,000 in proceeds from the sale of untaxed cigarettes. While Barrett remained in the car, Dore and Todd forced the driver and passenger of the van from the vehicle at gunpoint, got in the vehicle, and then drove off. Unbeknownst to Barrett's accomplices, a third man, Gamar Dafalla, remained in the back of the van. After they drove off, Dafalla threw a bag containing the vast majority of the $10,000 out the van to his compatriots. Upon realizing what Dafalla had done, Dore shot and killed him. [3]
Legal background
For his role in the robbery, Barrett was charged in the Southern District of New York with (among other things) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act Robbery (Count One), discharging a firearm in relation to Hobbs Act conspiracy (Count Two), aiding a robbery (Count Five), aiding the use of a discharged firearm (Count Six), and aiding the use of a firearm used to commit murder (Count Seven). Barrett was convicted in March 2013, and sentenced to 90 years in prison. The Second Circuit affirmed, but Barrett's Count Two conviction would later be vacated by the Supreme Court in light of United States v. Davis (2019). [3]
At resentencing in 2021, Barrett was sentenced to fifty years in prison: twenty years on Counts One, Three, and Five to run concurrently to each other; and five and twenty-five years on Counts Four and Seven, respectively, to run consecutively to each other, and consecutively to the sentence imposed for Counts One, Three, and Five. For Count Six (stemming from the Dafalla murder), the district court imposed no sentence, arguing that his §924(c) offense is a lesser-included offense of the §924(j) conduct. On appeal, Barrett filed supplemental briefing in light of Lora v. United States , arguing that his §924(j) offense did not warrant consecutive sentencing. The Second Circuit agreed, but reversed the district court's finding that §924(c) and §924(j) could be punished with a single sentence. The Court found that the two are separate offenses that required separate sentences, despite one being a lesser-included offense contained within the other. The Circuit further held that such sentences would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. It then remanded to the district court for resentencing on Count Seven, followed by resentencing on Count Six. [3]
