U.S. Attorney's Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania
(717) 221-4482
April 8, 2015

New York Man Convicted of Eight Robberies Throughout Central Pennsylvania

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Maurice Lebron Davis, age 40, of Brooklyn, New York was convicted yesterday of eight counts of robbery or attempted robbery following a four day jury trial in Harrisburg. U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III presided over the trial, which included testimony from 10 victims and five experts. The defendant also testified, denying his involvement in the robberies.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Davis was charged in an Indictment by a grand jury on February 20, 2013. Davis robbed or attempted to rob fast food restaurants located in Cumberland, Dauphin and York counties between December 2011 and February 2012. For some of the robberies, Davis broke the drive thru window and crawled inside, waiting for the opening employees to arrive. For others, Davis accosted the employees in the parking lot as they walked up and forced them to let him into the restaurants. He would then demand they give him money, before fleeing the scene.

These cases were investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pennsylvania State Police, and the police departments of Upper Allen Township, Middlesex Township, Harrisburg, Carroll Township, Swatara Township, Lower Allen Township and Silver Spring Township. This case was being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor.

A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

In this case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 20 years’ imprisonment for each count, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

No sentencing date has been set by the court.

This content has been reproduced from its original source.