Bronx

Published on: April 24, 2013

Court Looks at Elements of Burglary vs. Petit Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A man entered a home in Dade County, Florida. He did this in the middle of the night without the knowledge and consent of the two people who lived in the premises, a brother and a sister. The man ransacked the house and took away with him a color television set. He was later apprehended by the police.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the charges of larceny and burglary were brought against him. The larceny charge was brought for the taking of the television while the charge of burglary was charged for breaking and entering into the house owned by another person for the purpose of committing a crime.

The criminal information filed against him alleged that sometime on May 9, 1976 in Dade County, the man unlawfully entered the house owned by VA, the owner and custodian of the home with intent to commit the offense of petit larceny.

Published on: April 23, 2013

Appellants Claim Jury Instruction Harmed Their Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said petitioners were charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny. At a jury trial, petitioners requested an instruction on breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, petit larceny, but this request was denied. Thereafter, the jury found the petitioners guilty as charged and the criminal court sentenced each of them to fifteen (15) years. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the guilty verdict holding that the proof of guilt was overwhelming and that any error committed by the court’s refusal of the requested instruction on the alleged lesser offense was harmless.

The case is now before the court for certiorari.

Published on: April 21, 2013

marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a jury conviction that charged him with the crime of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and for possession of a weapon and ammunition by a convicted felon.

Case Background

In July, law officers executed a search warrant on the defendant’s residence. The officers testified that the defendant arrived at his home around 9:45 p.m. and got out of his vehicle and went into the house. Not long afterwards another car pulled up and the defendant came out of the house to talk to the driver of the vehicle. After the driver left the officers executed the search warrant of the property.

Published on: April 19, 2013

Appellants Convicted Under Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants in this case were indicted for a number of violations of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. A jury trial was held in the matter and the defendatns were all convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. The defendants raise several issues on appeal.

Case Facts

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellants for a time frame of almost a year smuggled marijuana into the United States. The smuggling would typically include using shrimp boats to go into Columbia and return with multi-ton cargos of marijuana.

Published on: April 6, 2013

Defendants Claim Faulty Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 25, 2003, the Associate Village Justice of this Court signed a search warrant directed to “any police officer of the County of Nassau.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the search warrant provided: “Proof, by affidavit, having been this day made before me by Senior Building Inspector, Village of Westbury, Public Works, Village of Westbury and Department of Public Works, Village of Westbury that there is probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, as set forth in the affidavit and Exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein; you are therefore, commanded to make a search with Senior Building Inspector and his agents, between 09/25/03 and 10/02/03 in the hours between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. of the entire premises designated and described as 335 Princeton Street, Westbury, New York. “The seizure of the foregoing evidence shall be limited to the taking of still photographs and videotape pictures of the inside and outside of the premises. This warrant must be executed within 10 days of the date of signing and a return to court 10 days thereafter. “If you find the same or any part thereof you are hereby directed to return and deliver said evidence to the undersigned Justice of the Village Court without unnecessary delay.”

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the Senior Building Inspector submitted what may be described as an exhaustive affidavit in support of the application. This Court wonders why, in view of the thoroughness of this affidavit and the apparent pre-warrant investigation, that a search and search warrant were needed at all unless the Village is simply trying to test the legal waters in this case to determine whether they may have another tool at their disposal, namely search warrants, that they may use to enforce the Village’s zoning and building code laws. The application for and the execution of a search warrant may in themselves deter the proliferation of illegal housing. The execution of a search warrant is an extremely frightening event for those subject to it. The court questions the need for this warrant because there is no legal requirement that a warrant be obtained in order to take photos of the outside of the premises from a public thoroughfare in front of the home. However, this Court finds that the Village has acted in good faith attempting; for example, to obtain the homeowner’s consent for the search prior to seeking the warrant and no doubt believing that similar actions have been approved and utilized in other villages without challenge.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the subject property, 335 Princeton Street, is a two story house within the Incorporated Village of Westbury, New York. As shown on the records of the Department of Buildings of the Village of Westbury it is located on a quiet residential block consisting of one (1) family homes neatly maintained on a tree lined block.

Published on: April 1, 2013

Court Discusses Excessive Fines Clause in DUI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 20, 1999, respondent Police Commissioner announced that the City would apply the Property Clerk Forfeiture Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-140) to vehicles operated by individuals arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). At 10:30 P.M. on February 21, 1999, police stopped and arrested petitioner for DWI. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the arresting officer concluded that petitioner was intoxicated based on the strong smell of alcohol, watery and bloodshot eyes, and coordination tests. A breathalyzer test indicated .11% blood alcohol content, over the .10% intoxication threshold. Officers took petitioner’s 1988 Acura for forfeiture. By letter of February 26, 1999, petitioner’s attorneys demanded its return.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, by order to show cause and petition dated March 9, 1999, petitioner commenced this proceeding. Petitioner seeks a final judgment invalidating the City’s policy and the taking and retention of his car. On March 19, 1999, Property Clerk commenced a separate action against petitioner for a judgment declaring the vehicle forfeited as the instrumentality of the crime of driving while intoxicated. The criminal action is pending.

A Bronx DWI Lawyer said that, petitioner challenges the City policy as statutorily unauthorized and preempted by State law. Petitioner asserts that the City unconstitutionally violated the separation of powers by imposing an additional DWI sentence, beyond that authorized by State law. Petitioner argues that forfeiture constitutes punishment under Federal constitutional law, violating Letterlough.

Published on: March 24, 2013

Defendants Contend Search of their Vehicle was Unlawful

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants in this case were convicted in a nonjury trial for possession of 230 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. The marijuana was found in a locked trunk of a car that had been rented and driven by one of the defendants (marijuana possession). Another defendant was a passenger in the car at the time an immigration search was conducted.

Case Facts

The checkpoint where the search took place was on highway 35. The government often employs checkpoints at this location or one nearby.

Published on: March 23, 2013

Court Decides Constructive Possession Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged by information with possession of over five grams of marijuana (marijuana possession). He filed a sworn motion to have the reciting dismissed. The motion in part stated that he lived in the home with his wife and children and that while the search of the home revealed marijuana, he was not in actual possession of any type of controlled substance at the time the search took place. The state filed for a leave to amend, which was granted.

The state then prepared to move that the defendant was in constructive possession of a controlled substance. The state plans to prove this by the fact that the defendants name and address were on the box that contained the marijuana and that the marijuana was found in his bedroom closet.

Case Discussion

Published on: March 22, 2013

Defendant Charged with Marijuana and Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant along with a co-defendant were charged with felony possession of marijuana, cocaine possession, possession of a drug implement, and possession of methaqualone. The appellant was denied the motion to suppress certain physical evidence. The appellant was tried alone. The trial resulted in a hung jury mistrial. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trial court then ordered that the case of the appellant be tried with the co-defendant. The joint trial resulted in the appellant being found guilty as charged.

The appellant was sentenced to five years’ probation after serving six months in jail. The appellant motioned for a new trial, which was denied and this appeal followed.

Relevant Facts

Published on: March 19, 2013

Defendant Contends Improper Jury Instructions Were Given in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Facts

An informant contacted agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and informed them that there were large transactions of large quantities of illegal drugs being made in the area. The informant then helped the Drug Enforcement Administration create a reverse sting operation. In the operation DEA officers poses as sellers of illegal drugs to help ferret out illicit drug traffickers. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the informant was instructed to put the word out that there was a large amount of marijuana available for sale.

The informant approached one of the bartenders at a local restaurant and told him that he had some friends that were looking for buyers for 1000 pounds of marijuana at $200 each. The informant told the bartender that they could easily make $25,000 each in the deal.