New York

Published on: May 29, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Lacked Jurisdiction for Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, a man filed an appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree, upon his plea of guilty.

The offense happened on the last quarter of 2004 when the man assaulted his former girlfriend on several occasions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he broke into his girlfriend’s apartment, repeatedly harassed the woman and stalked her in violation of temporary orders of protection. Consequently, the man was charged in two separate accusations with multiple crimes, including burglary in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, stalking in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second degree. Afterwards, the separate accusations were consolidated. The man also agreed to plead guilty to burglary and criminal contempt. Based on records, in exchange of the man’s claim, the Supreme Court promised him that if he completed the treatment alternatives to street crimes drug program they will leave his plea to burglary in the second degree and sentence him to concurrent terms of five years’ probation for criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree. However, the Supreme Court warned the man that if he failed to complete drug treatment, his plea to burglary in the second degree would stand, and he would be sentenced to a determinate term of seven years of imprisonment and a period of five years of post release supervision for that offense.

The man then acknowledged that he understood the arrangement. The man give up his right to a jury trial, his right to cross- examine witnesses, and his right to testify on his own behalf if he wished to do so. Immediately after the man acknowledged that he was giving up his rights, the Supreme Court briefly addressed the issue of a waiver of the right to appeal. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that it explained that if the man were tried and convicted, he would have the right to appeal the conviction but he already give up his right. The Supreme Court further asked the man whether he was willing to give up all his rights and any other rights he had and plead guilty and the man answered yes. The man then admitted that he entered unlawfully and remained unlawfully in the victim’s dwelling, that he was aware that she had obtained an order of protection against him, and that he had violated that order of protection.

Published on: May 29, 2012

Court Discusses the Crime of Predatory Sexual Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

The indictment alleges that on May 2, 2011, the man forcibly compelled the complaining witness to perform oral sex upon him. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the indictment, the man then forcibly subjected the woman to anal intercourse. The indictment further alleges that, on May 14, 2011, the man forcibly touched the breasts of complaining witness with his hands and mouth. According to the indictment, the man also forcibly compelled the complainant woman to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to vaginal intercourse.

The man’s motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes was granted. Upon review of the Grand Jury minutes, questions pertaining to the counts of Predatory Sexual Assault were raised by the court. Following oral argument, the Jury dismissed four of the indictment, each charging Predatory Sexual Assault, as they related to the underlying offenses committed on May 2, 2011. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man moves for dismissal of the remaining indictment, each charging Predatory Sexual Assault, as they relate to the underlying offenses committed on May 14, 2011, on the following grounds that the remaining counts of Predatory Sexual Assault, as they appear in the indictment, fail to state a crime or offense; the remaining counts of Predatory Sexual Assault cannot be legally amended; the Predatory Sexual Assault statute was enacted to penalize recidivist behavior; and the Jury’s intended use of the Predatory Sexual Assault statute violates man’s due process rights.

The Jury contends that their intended use of the Predatory Sexual Assault statute is appropriate and that the remaining indictments were properly charged to the Grand Jury and correctly worded in the indictment. The man’s motion to dismiss was denied from the bench.

Published on: May 27, 2012

Claimant Brings Action for Unjust Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Court of Claims in the City of New York. The defendant in the case is the State of New York. The claimant of the case is Amine Baba-Ali. The judge overseeing the case is Melvin L. Schweitzer.

Action

The claimant in this case, Amine Baba-Ali was accused and convicted of sexually abusing his four year old daughter. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the allegations included that he sodomized the girl and raped her. He was imprisoned for 783 days on multiple concurrent sentences for these convictions. He was held in a maximum security prison during this time.

Published on: May 26, 2012

Court Discusses Sex Offender Registration Act

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent for this case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Neil Pietarniello. The case is being heard in the Second Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Appellate Division.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is an appeal from the defendant concerning a previous order from the Kings County Supreme Court. The judge from the previous case was Brennan. The case involved a hearing to determine the sex offender risk level of the defender. The appellant was designated as a level 3 sex offender based on Correction Law article 6-C.

Published on: May 26, 2012

Court Defines Sexual Deviancy

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of Queens County in the state of New York. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is Theodore Rhodes. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is being represented by Anthony Marra, from New York City, with Bob Finkin and Kew Gardens for counsel. The plaintiff is represented by Frank D. O’Connor, the Queens County District Attorney with Benjamin J. Jacobson, the Assistant District Attorney for counsel. The justice overseeing the case is J. Irwin Shapiro.

Current Case

The defendant, Theodore Rhodes has made a motion for resentencing.

Published on: May 26, 2012

Defendant Charged with Kidnapping and Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court in Queens County, part one. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case involves the plaintiff, the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Theodore Rhodes. Rhodes is being represented by Anthony Marra of New York City, Bob Finkin, and Kew Gardens. The plaintiff has Benjamin J. Jacobson, the Assistant District Attorney for counsel from the office of Frank D. O’Connor, the District Attorney of Queens County. The judge that is overseeing the case is J. Irwin Shapiro.

Motion

The defendant, Theodore Rhodes, has made a motion for a resentence in his case.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Emotionally Disturbed Defendant Convicted of Homicide

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal case being held in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant of the case is Lydell Harris. The appellant is represented by De Nice Powell of New York City with Lynn W. L. Fahey for counsel. The respondent is represented by the District Attorney of Kings County, Charles J. Hynes with Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee for counsel.

Case History

The defendant has been convicted of second degree murder. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the trial the evidence supplied by the People established that the defendant, Lydell Harris, killed his friend of many years, Larry Amorose using a machete. The defendant was aided by his girlfriend and they decapitated and dismembered the victim’s body and placed the parts in garbage bags and then threw the bags into the ocean just off Coney Island.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Court Hears Petition to Change Name of Same Sex Couple

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is in regard to an application for Gena M. Daniels to amend her name to become Gena M. Zaks. The case is being heard in the Civil Court of the city of New York in New York County. The petitioner is represented by Yetta G. Kurland. The judge overseeing the case is Paul G. Feinman.

Case Background

The petitioner of the case, Gena M. Daniels is seeking to change her name to Gena M. Zak. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Zak is the last name of her life partner of the same sex. Her partner has agreed to the application for the name change.

Published on: May 17, 2012

Defendant Contends Improrper Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts voted an indictment against the accused men charging them with criminal possession of a weapon and conspiracy in violation of the Penal Law. In summary, a New York Criminal Lawyer the court alleges that a confidential informant contacted one of the accused, offering him an opportunity to rob drug dealers of a valuable supply of narcotics and cash. The accused allegedly accepted the informant’s offer and engaged the three accused men to be part of the robbery gang. The case detectives instructed the informant to tell the accused men the robbery location. It is alleged that the informant and the four accused men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

The accused men filed omnibus discovery motions, to which the court responded. The State also supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the grand jury minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions. To enable the parties to fully brief the issue, the court found that release of certain portions of the grand jury minutes to the parties was necessary to assist the court in making the determination on the motion.

The Crime Investigator testified in the grand jury. In summary, the informant testified that he had continuous conversations with one of the accused; however, his testimony is devoid of any references to where he or his co-accused was located when they had the telephone conversations. Furthermore, it is apparent from the grand jury minutes that none of the face-to-face meetings between the informant and the accused men occurred in Manhattan. The sole reference to Manhattan in the informant’s testimony is contained in the informant’s recitation of why he was at a certain place at a certain time.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Are the Actions of Private Security Subject to Constitutional Restraints?

by Stephen Bilkis

Facts:

A security officer, a retired member of the New York City Police Department which the court takes judicial notice of, at the Long Island Jewish Hospital, was instructed by his security supervisor, via radio transmission, to proceed to a Children’s Hospital parking lot. He was told to locate a certain auto reportedly containing a handgun. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was also informed that the New York City Police Department had been notified and would arrive shortly. When he located the auto, he observed the handgun in a holster on the front seat. He immediately radioed his supervisor who replied that the police will be on the scene. The security officer checked the auto door and found it locked. The defendant himself, a security officer at the Children’s Hospital, arrived on the scene and saw the responding uniformed security officer standing by his auto. Defendant, without prodding, told the security officer that the auto was his. He then opened the auto door and gave the gun to the security officer.

Defendant then left the scene. The New York City police arrived within minutes, and the responding security officer reported his findings and handed the gun to the police. Defendant then returned to the scene. A New York City Police Officer asked the defendant if the auto was his; defendant replied affirmatively. The officer then asked defendant if he had a permit for the gun. Defendant replied he did not. The police officer then placed the defendant under arrest. While in a police car on the way to the police station defendant was read his Miranda warnings. He then told the officer that he had gotten the gun down south.