New York

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: 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.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Court Decides if Defendant Has Right to Speedy Trial after Traffic Infraction

by Stephen Bilkis

The defense motion to dismiss the charge of Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol, a traffic infraction, pursuant to the speedy trial provisions of Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) is denied. While CPL does not apply to traffic infractions there is a constitutional right to a speedy trial which has not yet been violated.

A New York DWI Lawyer said it is undisputed that fifty-two days between the accused man’s arraignment and the complainant being ready for trial are chargeable to the complainant. The accused argues that the case should be dismissed as more than 30 days have passed since the accused man’s arraignment, the time allowed to be ready for trial on a violation.

Criminal Procedure Law establishes that when the accused is not in custody, the complainant must be ready for trial within 90 days if the highest crime charged is a class A or unclassified misdemeanor which is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than three months or within 60 days if the highest crime charged is a class B misdemeanor which is punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than three months or within 30 days if the offense is a violation.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Defendant Seeks to Withdraw his Plea Based on Duress

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was indicted in three separate indictments by a Grand Jury charging him with two counts of assault in the second degree, escape in the second degree and resisting arrest; two counts of grand larceny in the third degree; and two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and one count of grand larceny in the third degree, respectively. Thereafter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the People moved to permit defendant to withdraw his not guilty pleas to all three indictments and substitute therefor a plea of guilty to one count of grand larceny in the third degree with respect to the second indictment and one count of grand larceny in the second degree with respect to the third indictment, in full satisfaction of all three indictments and of a felony offense for which he had been arrested but not yet indicted.

On appeal defendant urges that the plea bargain was illegal because it encompassed dismissal of a felony complaint for which he had not yet been indicted. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court ruled that while County Court had no authority to dismiss the felony complaint and did not purport to do so, the District Attorney had the discretion and authority to decline to continue prosecution of that offense. His agreement to do so as part of a negotiated plea is certainly legal.

Defendant next contends that his guilty plea to grand larceny in the second degree, a class D felony, permitted a maximum sentence of 3 1/2 to 7 years as a second felony offender. However, because the plea agreement provided for a sentence of 4 to 8 years in the event that defendant failed to make restitution of $11,000, defendant claims that his plea was illegal. We disagree. The Court viewed County Court’s action as an inadvertent misstatement. At the time of sentencing County Court properly sentenced defendant to a prison term of 3 1/2 to 7 years. It has long been the rule that a court has the inherent power to correct its own error in imposing sentence.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Defendant Charged with Stealing Contents of Airplane Hangar

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, a security officer assigned at an airline’s hangar at Kennedy Airport was approached on numerous occasions in the spring of 1976 by the defendant, who indicated an interest in securing entry to the hangar and in taking money from the safe therein. The security officer was offered the chance to make some money if he co-operated. A New York Criminal Lawyer said during the course of these conversations, he was asked, in increasing detail, about the alarm system in operation at the hangar. The security officer reported these conversations to his supervisor, the head of security of the airline.

The security officer had been in continual touch with his supervisors and the police had been alerted. Indeed, by the time Defendant was permitted into the hangar, one gate was manned by an undercover police officer posing as a security guard.

On October 26, 1976, Defendants called the security officer and told him they wanted to “come in that night.” At 11:15 P. M. The security officer met defendant at a diner. At 11:30 they entered a car and were joined by the co-defendants, who was carrying an attache case. Enroute to the airport, defendant discussed the job with the security officer. Defendant told him that in five years, “when its all over,” his share would be sent to him. Defendant advised him that in order to make it “look good” he would shackle him and take his gun. The other security guard would be tied and dropped off at the edge of the airport.