The legal battle continues for Percy Barron. A recent ruling in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has denied Barron’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Barron argued that his convictions related to the use of a firearm during a crime of violence should be overturned in light of Supreme Court decisions in *Johnson v. United States* and *United States v. Davis*. However, the court found his arguments unpersuasive, and upheld the original convictions.
Background of the Case
This case has a long history, dating back to 1996. A jury found Percy Barron guilty on 34 counts, stemming from a series of offenses committed with two co-defendants between July and September 1993. Crucially, Barron was convicted on three counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). These charges were linked to three separate Hobbs Act robberies, which are violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
In March 1997, Judge Gladys Kessler sentenced Barron to a staggering 409 years and 4 months to life in prison. This included specific sentences for the firearm-related counts, which were to be served consecutively. After an appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed some of the convictions, but upheld the majority of the original judgment. In November 1998, Judge Kessler resentenced Barron to an aggregate term of 319 years and 4 months to life in prison, reflecting the appellate court’s changes.
The Current Motion and Barron’s Arguments
Barron’s current motion, filed in 2016 and supplemented in 2020, challenged his conviction for using a firearm during a crime of violence. His central argument was that, based on the *Johnson* and *Davis* Supreme Court rulings, the Hobbs Act robbery, which served as the basis for his firearm convictions, does not qualify as a “crime of violence.” If the underlying offense isn’t a crime of violence, then the related firearm conviction would be invalid.
The court reviewed the indictment, the original judgment, Barron’s motions, and the government’s opposition. The court’s decision rested on whether Hobbs Act robbery meets the definition of a “crime of violence” under federal law.
Legal Framework: Crime of Violence Defined
The legal framework is complex. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), a federal prisoner can challenge a sentence if it violates the Constitution or federal laws. The court must consider whether Barron has proven a denial of constitutional rights.
The critical issue in this case is the definition of “crime of violence,” as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). A crime of violence is a felony offense that either:
* Has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
* By its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
The Supreme Court, in *Davis*, found the second part of the definition (the “residual clause”) to be unconstitutionally vague. This means that, for an offense to be considered a “crime of violence,” it must meet the requirements of the first part (the “elements clause”). This focuses on whether the elements of the crime inherently involve the use or threat of physical force.
To determine this, courts use a “categorical approach.” This means they look at the *elements* of the crime, ignoring the specific facts of the case. They ask whether the elements of the crime *always* involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
The Court’s Decision and Reasoning
The court ultimately denied Barron’s motion. The court relied on a recent decision, *United States v. Smith*, in which it determined that Hobbs Act robbery does qualify as a “crime of violence” under the elements clause. The court also noted that every court of appeals to consider the question has held the same.
The court rejected Barron’s arguments. He had put forward three main points:
1. The Hobbs Act robbery statute criminalizes putting someone in fear of future injury to their property, which does not always require violent force.
2. Hobbs Act robbery could involve threats to intangible property (like a computer system), which might not involve physical force.
3. Hobbs Act robbery could be committed with minimal force to tangible property.
The court found these arguments unpersuasive, echoing the reasoning in *Smith*. The court stated that the Hobbs Act robbery statute, when someone is put in “fear of injury” to their property, requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court also rejected the distinction between tangible and intangible property. The court held that both the definition of “crime of violence” and the Hobbs Act Robbery statute use the term “property” without further clarification.
The court also addressed Barron’s reliance on *United States v. Chea*, a case from the Ninth Circuit. However, the court noted that a later published opinion from the Ninth Circuit, *United States v. Eckford*, explicitly rejected the *Chea* interpretation of the Hobbs Act. Published opinions are binding precedent; unpublished opinions are not. Therefore, the court followed the precedent set by *Eckford*.
In conclusion, the court found that the elements of Hobbs Act robbery, as defined by the statute, inherently involve the threat or use of physical force, thus qualifying it as a “crime of violence.”