Bronx

Published on: September 10, 2012

Defendants Court Had Improper Jurisdiction in Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 10, 1980, two men armed with a shot gun entered a fast food restaurant in Nassau County. They threatened the employees with bodily harm if they did not hand over the cash in the cash box. When the two female employees handed to the two armed men all the cash from the cash box, the men forced the women to go outside the restaurant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they forced the women to ride in their car which was parked outside the restaurant.

The two armed men drove for twenty minutes from the fast food restaurant in Nassau County to a dead end street somewhere in Suffolk County. During the drive, the men took turns feeling up the women’s skirts and shirts. The men fondled the women’s breasts and sex organs.

When they got to the dead end street in Suffolk County, the men took turns raping the two women. When the men were exhausted, they threatened the women and their families with death should they report the rapes to the police. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the two men then let the two women go.

Published on: September 9, 2012

Petitioner Requests a Recalculation of his Sentence

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1996, after a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of 7Â½ to 15 years on each charge. In 1997, petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree under. Thus, at the time of sentencing on the manslaughter conviction, petitioner was “subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment imposed at a previous time by a court of this state”. A New York Criminal Lawyer said pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement, petitioner pleaded guilty to the manslaughter charge. Consistent with the discretion afforded by statute to impose either a concurrent or consecutive period of incarceration, the court sentenced petitioner to a term of 7Â½ to 15 years, to be served consecutively with the sentence imposed following his conviction on the unrelated controlled substance charges.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the two cases against petitioner were consolidated for appeal. This Court affirmed the manslaughter conviction and reversed the earlier drug conviction. Rather than seek retrial, the People accepted petitioner’s plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in exchange for a sentence of 7Â½ to 15 years, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on the manslaughter conviction. Supreme Court sentenced petitioner in accordance with the plea agreement in October 2000 and issued a commitment order.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, in response to his inquiry regarding eligibility for parole, the Department of Correctional Services informed petitioner that his aggregated sentence was 12 to 24 years based on two terms of imprisonment that are to be served consecutively. In a letter to counsel, the Department took the position that pursuant to the decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Matter of Muntaqim v Herbert, the “relationship between such sentences had to remain consecutive. Thus, the Court that resentenced Mr. Murray on indictment #5174/94 could not change it from consecutive to concurrent.”

Published on: September 9, 2012

Court Looks at Defendant’s Repeated Parole Violations

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is about the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the Petitioner who challenged his continued incarceration in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). He argued that the delinquent time assessment imposed on November 5, 2008 following his final parole revocation hearing already expired on February 17, 2010.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it all started on September 10, 1997 when petitioner was convicted of the crime of Arson in the second degree and was given an indeterminate sentence of 7 to 14 years. In 2006, he was released from DOCS custody to parole supervision. His parole was subsequently revoked and was sent to a drug rehab center. In January 2007, Petitioner was released back to community based parole supervision, but thereafter, violated again the conditions of his release. He was returned to DOCS custody as a parole violator.

On September 10, 1997 petitioner was sentenced in Oneida County Court, to an indeterminate sentence of 7 to 14 years, upon his conviction of the crime of Arson 2°. Petitioner was first released form DOCS custody to parole supervision in September of 2006. His parole, however, was subsequently revoked but restored at the Willard Drug Treatment Campus. Petitioner was released from Willard back to community-based parole supervision in January of 2007 but he again violated the conditions of release and was returned to DOCS custody as a parole violator.

Published on: September 8, 2012

Court Discusses Immunity Offer Made by Grand Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

Television shows often idealize the criminal who turns states evidence and is given immunity from prosecution. Because of this, people who commit crimes sometimes think that they can just turn evidence on a co-defendant and get immunity for the crimes that they have committed. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the reality is a little different. In order for a prosecutor to be interested in conferring immunity on a person who has committed a crime, the evidence that they are able to provide must be critical to the conviction of a criminal who is more valuable to the prosecutor than they are. That type of situation does not happen frequently. When it does, it is involving crimes that are serious in nature.

One 1980 case involved a man who had been a co-conspirator in a gasoline station conglomerate scam. He and his partner had purchased several gasoline stations in the 1970’s with the intention of having a thriving business. Unfortunately, they discovered that they were not very good at that business and within the first year, they were in serious financial trouble. They had gone into debt with several major oil companies and knew that if any one of them called in the debts that were owed, the company would fail. They devised a scheme to prevent the oil companies from finding out that they were in trouble. They began to falsify the company records. They created fraudulent profit numbers in order to get more credit from the oil companies and keep them from calling in the debts that the company already owed them. When they began to claim fraudulent profits, they had to maintain the scam with fraudulent information reported on tax returns and in the company business records. Like so many criminal schemes, what seemed like a one- time lie soon snowballed out of control. The lies grew and the fraudulent records increased. Before long, they were discovered and arrested. One of the men maintained that the other partner was the driving force behind the idea to defraud the oil companies. He approached the grand jury with the proposal that he would testify against his partner in return for immunity. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the grand jury agreed as far as one of the schemes was concerned. Later, when the prosecutor indicted him on one of the other charges, he claimed that he had been given immunity from prosecution by the grand jury if he had testified before them.

The state was called upon to clarify what the intentions had been in the grand jury room when the offer of immunity was made. They needed to determine if the offer was made solely on that charge, or if the agreement had been made to provide immunity from prosecution on all related offenses for the man who agreed to testify against his business partner. In order to determine what the actual deal entailed, the Supreme Court needed to review all of the records from the grand jury testimony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the ability to interpret exactly what was intended soon became clear.

Published on: September 7, 2012

EMT Assaulted During Call

by Stephen Bilkis

Many people do not appreciate the unpredictability that comes with the job for an emergency medical technician. Often, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said they do not have any idea of the volatility of the situation that they have been dispatched to. In most cities, if the call is for a victim of a fight, the EMTs are directed to wait until police officers have certified that the scene is safe for them to enter before they go in. In some situations, they are sent into a volatile situation without advance notice.

On Christmas Eve morning of 2006 at about two thirty, one EMT crew discovered that no call can be considered safe, even as you are leaving it. The man and woman team had responded to a call of a woman with an injured hand and possibly another injured person at the scene at 190 Butler Street in Brooklyn, New York. It appears from the transcript of the call that the technicians were notified that the injuries were the result of a fight, but police were not dispatched to the call until the female EMT placed the radio call for emergency assistance.

The team had arrived at the apartment building and noticed that there was a large group of people in front of the building. Everyone seemed to be in a festive mood and greetings were exchanged. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the team was taken to an apartment in the back where they treated the female with the injured hand and recommended that she go to a hospital for x-rays. She told the team that she had been in a verbal argument with a man and had punched the wall and injured her hand. She stated that she would go to the hospital on her own and the team walked back to their marked ambulance.

Published on: September 7, 2012

Court Looks at Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

When people have contacts that are strong in other countries, they can sometimes become confused about how to handle family law situations so that they are in compliance with the laws of New York. New York is well known for being a hub for many different cultures. Many people from other countries use New York as a port of entry into the United States. However, a New York Drug Crime Lawyer said many people who immigrate to the United States to find work or a better life maintain the ties that they had in their home country. It can be easier for them in many cases to continue to rely on the legal system that they grew up with and understand in their home country. What they do not realize is that if they have become residents of New York, then they will have to comply with the laws of the state of New York in order to ensure that they are in compliance with the legal system here.

In 1901, a man from Havana, Cuba met and married a woman in New York. They established a home and a family in New York. On January 11, 1934, the pair decided to separate. The wife was granted custody of the children and she was awarded alimony and child support. The separation was conducted pursuant to the laws of New York. The case was handled by the Supreme Court of Bronx County in New York State. In 1955, the husband died and the wife discovered that in 1934, the husband had gone to Cuba and obtained a foreign divorce decree. She did not know then or at the time of his death that he had gotten a divorce. She was not served and she was not present in the court. She did not have any representative present in the court. After the divorce was obtained, she was never notified that the husband had gotten a divorce.

When he died, she discovered that he had obtained a divorce and she was not included as a person who was family in his estate. She filed an appeal in probate court to be given the status of his wife in the probate of his estate. A New York Criminal Lawyer he contends that she never knew that he had obtained a divorce. She further contends that the foreign divorce was not legal because they were both living in the Bronx in New York at the time that her husband had divorced her in Cuba. A Nassau Drug Possession Lawyer said she maintains that it was an illegal action for her husband to appeal to a court with no jurisdiction over the couple to obtain a divorce. She points out that they had lived in the Bronx for more than thirty years at the time that he obtained a divorce in Cuba. he filed a motion with the court for a summary judgment in her favor determining that for the purposes of inheritance in his estate, that she should be considered his widow with all of the legal privileges that widowhood would entail.

Published on: September 7, 2012

Defendant Moves to Have Sentence Set Aside

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant moves pursuant to Section 440.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law to set aside the sentence imposed upon the ground that it was unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the sole issue raised by the defendant is whether he could properly be sentenced under the Penal Law without first having been examined pursuant to Section 81.19 of the Mental Hygiene Law (formerly Section 207) where he was charged with a violation of Article 220 of the Penal Law.

Section 81.19(a) states:

Published on: September 6, 2012

Court Looks at Whether Key Evidence Should be Excluded

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a criminal case where the court excluded the evidence sought to be introduced in a prior, uncharged incident stating it was largely irrelevant from the alleged crime from which defendant is being indicted.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on September 20, 1985, police officers chased herein defendants who are driving a livery or gypsy cab for suspecting to have stolen the vehicle. The officers then chased the defendants from the footbridge toward a ramp of the Henry Hudson Parkway. Reaching the bottom of the bridge, and proceeding along the exit ramp, defendant allegedly turned around and once again fired at the officers; neither officer was struck by a bullet. This time police officers returned fire, but did not strike his target. The absconders then proceeded north, away from the footbridge, and disappeared. After sometime, they were apprehended and charged with attempted murder and gun possession.

The prosecution’s star witness testified that on September 11, 1985 while driving his gypsy livery cab, defendants put a gun on the back of his head. He claimed that defendants stole his car and his money with a gun.

Published on: September 2, 2012

Defendant Refuses to Give DNA Sample

by Stephen Bilkis

Seven men were grouped together outside a house. They were talking loudly together and drinking. One of the neighbors called the police and so two uniformed police officers were dispatched to the scene. The police officers had their police badges and did not have their guns drawn.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said as they were speaking with the group of seven men, one of the men stood up and pulled up his pants by his waistband and walked away in the direction of the house. When the man adjusted his pants, a small plastic bag fell from his pant leg. The police officer saw the plastic bag and it was a re=sealable bag contained dried herbs. The police officers seized the plastic bag from the ground and smelled it and they thought it was marijuana. Subsequent testing revealed it to be marijuana as suspected by the police officers.

They followed the man who had gone into the house. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officers knocked on the door and the residents of the house opened the door to the police officers and let the police officers in to the house. When the police officers went into the house, they noticed that a group of men were also drinking. Their bottled alcoholic beverages were contained in a cooler which lay open on the floor.

Published on: September 1, 2012

Issue Involved Whether Defendants Guilt was Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, defendant appealed from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), rendered November 18, 1991, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

The issue in this case is whether defendant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Court held that, the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant was in possession of 12.312 grams, or .434 ounces, of cocaine. There was legally sufficient evidence of the element of intent to sell a controlled substance based upon the defendant’s possession of this quantity of cocaine.