How Many Years Can You Get for Robbery in New York?
These selected New York robbery records report different degrees and sentence scopes, rather than a single observed 5-to-21-year range. Bellevue received five years plus five years’ supervision; Williams seven plus five; Coward a reported 12 plus five across two robbery counts; Dorcil a reported 14 plus five with two robbery convictions. Samuel’s original concurrent 21-year terms were reduced on appeal to concurrent 17-year terms plus five years’ supervision. These are not citywide minimums, averages or predictions.
Quick Answer
- Named records: 5 defendants, not 5 fully qualified comparable city-only outcomes
- Name correction: The subway-hammer defendant is Anthony Coward
- Later sentence correction: Samuel’s 21-year concurrent terms reduced to 17 years concurrent in 2021, plus 5 years’ supervision
- Scope: First- and second-degree robbery, multi-count outcomes and related indictments remain distinct
- Comparison: Separate reported outcomes; no numerical observed range asserted
Browse the New York crime sentence hub, compare first-degree assault sentence examples, read our methodology, and review our editorial standards.
What Does Robbery Mean in New York?
New York defines robbery as forcible stealing. First-degree robbery under Penal Law §160.15 includes specified aggravating facts such as serious injury, a deadly weapon, a dangerous instrument, or displaying what appears to be a firearm. It is a class B felony.
Statutory Penalties
For a first-time violent felony offender convicted of a class B violent felony, Penal Law §70.02 generally provides a determinate term of 5 to 25 years. Second-degree robbery under section 160.10 is class C; the current section 70.02 ordinary class C determinate framework is 3½–15 years, separate from class B 5–25. Exceptions and prior-offender rules matter. The separately labeled September 2027 version is not applied now or automatically to older judgments. See the official robbery statute and violent-felony sentencing statute.
Real New York Robbery Case Outcomes
| Case | Circumstances | Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Bellevue | Gunpoint robbery of a Crown Heights bodega | First-degree robbery, jury verdict | 5 years plus 5 years post-release supervision |
| Dupreme Williams | Two violent robberies in Brooklyn | Second-degree robbery, guilty plea | 7 years plus 5 years post-release supervision |
| Patrice Dorcil | Phone-store robbery; one prosecution with co-defendant | Two first-degree robbery counts, jury verdict; judgment affirmed | 14 years plus 5 years’ supervision reported; count allocation unspecified |
| Anthony Samuel | Related robbery judgments under two indictments | Three first-degree robbery counts, guilty pleas; sentences reduced on appeal | Three 17-year terms concurrent, plus 5 years’ supervision; not 51 years |
| Anthony Coward | Two subway riders attacked with a hammer and robbed | Two counts of first-degree robbery, guilty plea | 12 years plus 5 years’ supervision reported across two counts; allocation unspecified |
Case 1: Michael Bellevue
The March 30, 2026 release reports that day’s five-year sentence followed by five years’ supervision after a December 2, 2025 jury verdict on one first-degree-robbery count. The prosecution’s requested 12 years is not the imposed term. The January 15, 2024 offense is described at 401 Schenectady Avenue, distinct from the January 19 arrest.
Case 2: Dupreme Williams
The November 22, 2024 release reports that day’s seven years plus five years’ supervision after an October 29 second-degree-robbery plea. It describes Flatbush Avenue Extension/Fleet Street and the York Street subway train as robbery locations, not his Queens residence. Its first incident paragraph prints February 13, 2014 while a later incident is dated March 8, 2024; the first date is not silently changed or treated as independently resolved here. The reported term is not divided among incidents by assumption.
Case 3: Anthony Coward
The February 8, 2016 release identifies Anthony Coward and reports that day’s 12 years plus five years’ supervision after a January 25 plea to two first-degree-robbery counts. Both May 4 and May 7, 2014 offenses are placed inside the Rockaway Avenue/Fulton Street subway station, distinct from the residence address. The release does not allocate the term between counts; two incidents are not counted as two independent prosecutions. Same-name Connecticut cases are not matched to this Brooklyn judgment.
Case 4: Patrice Dorcil
The May 23, 2018 release reports the previous day’s 14 years plus five years’ supervision for the October 31, 2015 phone-store event at Flatbush/Nostrand Avenues, not Canarsie residence. The May 26, 2021 decision, indictment 8833/15 identifies two first-degree-robbery counts and affirms the May 22, 2018 judgment; it does not give individual terms. Leave to appeal was denied September 27, 2021, not a new merits affirmance. Dersonvil’s related conviction is not an independent new prosecution.
Case 5: Anthony Samuel
The May 10, 2017 release reports the original 21-year outcome for August 2014 robberies at 630 Utica Avenue and the other described Brooklyn locations. The February 10, 2021 appellate decision, pages 1–2 identifies indictments 6820/14 and 5961/15 and three concurrent first-degree-robbery terms, each originally 21 years plus five years’ supervision. It reduces them to 17 years concurrent, preserving five years’ supervision. The related indictments, three counts and later review are not automatically multiple independently qualifying city cases; concurrent terms are not added to 51 years. The 2017 21-year announcement is historical, not the updated result.
Why Were the Sentences Different?
Different robbery degrees, count scopes and later appellate modifications are kept distinct. Supervision is not prison time, and the releases do not establish the reasons for comparisons between different defendants. Samuel’s sentence reduction is the specific appellate result, not a prediction for another case.
Methodology
All five relevant agency passages, the complete two-page Samuel and Dorcil appellate texts and the Dorcil leave entry were read September 28, 2026 UTC (September 29 in Istanbul). Focused name/court searches did not establish a matched later merits result for the others; they were not exhaustive docket clearance. Independent municipal points, precise historical statutory routes, unresolved incident dating and complete subsequent-outcome qualification remain open. Reported multi-count totals do not define an observed range.
Disclaimer
General information only. Not legal advice. Sentencing depends on the charges, conviction, history and facts of each case.