A man was convicted after a jury trial of one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and one count of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.
Prior to judgment, the complainant filed and served on the man two statements of predicate felony conviction. It alleges that the man was convicted of the offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon. It is also alleged that the ten years time period within which a predicate felony conviction must have occurred in order for the conviction to enhance the man’s sentence.
The second statement of predicate felony conviction alleges that the man was convicted on the same date in the same court of possession with Intent to sell and deliver a controlled substance. The statement also alleges that the ten years time period provided by the criminal law for predicate felony convictions is similarly extended by the same term of imprisonment.
Subsequently, the man has moved on various grounds for an order declaring that neither of the statements can be used as a basis to find him a second felony drug offender who is subject to an enhanced sentence by virtue of having suffered a prior violent felony or prior non-violent felony conviction.
The man argues first that although the law authorizes a specific enhanced sentencing range for felony drug offenders whose prior convictions are for violent felony offenses, that prior violent felony sentencing range authorization does not include cases where a man’s prior alleged violent felony offense occurred in a foreign jurisdiction. The man also notes that the language of the provision states that the subdivision of the law shall apply to a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony. Sources revealed that the authorized enhanced sentence is then provided for those with a prior violent felony conviction.
The man further argues, however, that the language of the law does not authorized the outcome in the case because it refers to a sentence to pay a set surcharge, crime victim assistance fee or supplemental sex offender victim fee.
Despite what the court views as a number of valid arguments for the man’s position, the court finds the construction urged by the complainant to be the more convincing one. Based on records, the primary consideration of the courts in the construction of laws is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.
The man next argument was about his alleged robbery conviction. Sources revealed that the conviction may not serve as a predicate felony conviction under the law because the man could have been convicted for violating the law by conduct which would not constitute a felony in the city.
The complainant have also submitted documentary support to the court that the man is the person who was actually convicted of robbery with firearms and other dangerous weapons on the date specified and that the ten years period provided by the law was tolled during the period of his imprisonment. Based on records, the man did not admitted that he is the same person who was previously convicted of the crime and he did not submitted any evidence which might suggest he is not the person who was the subject on the said conviction.
As a result, the man shall be sentenced, on the sentencing date in the case, to a determinate term of imprisonment and a period of post release supervision applicable to the second felony drug offender with a prior violent felony conviction. No bail was set.
Most criminal offenders repeatedly perform their acts without thinking the consequences of their actions. If you suffered cruelty from people who continuously commit crimes, you can seek help from the New York City Criminal Lawyer. You can also seek assistance from the NYC Drug Crime Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.