Luzerne County Man Pleads Guilty To Jewelry Store Robberies, Bank Robbery, And Fraud
The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Kirk Robinson, age 45, of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, has pleaded guilty to being involved in two Luzerne County jewelry store robberies, a bank robbery, as well as an insurance fraud scheme.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Robinson pleaded guilty in federal court on October 24, 2013, before Senior United States District Judge James M. Munley. Robinson pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to carry firearms in relation to the robbery of Steve Hydock Diamonds Jewelry store, Kingston, Pennsylvania, on May 5, 2008 and Dunay Jewelry store, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on May 14, 2008. He also pleaded guilty to the armed bank robbery of the M&T Bank, Hanover Township, occurring on October 30, 2010. At his guilty plea, Robinson admitted that he planned and acted as a getaway driver in those three robberies. Additionally, Robinson pleaded guilty to using the mail in a scheme to defraud an insurance company of $43,000. Robinson admitted that the scheme involved staging a robbery with a confederate, and filing a police report wherein he falsely claimed an armed robber stole jewelry from him.
The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Kingston Police Department; the Hanover Township Police; and the Wilkes-Barre Police Department. Prosecution has been assigned to Assistant United States Attorney John C. Gurganus.
The sentence following this guilty plea will be imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
In this particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 85 years’ imprisonment, 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.