Bronx

Published on: February 16, 2013

Defendant Contends Government Relying on Hearsay Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was convicted for possession and use of a gun. This conviction was based on a statement from a witness that the defendant possessed an identical gun that he typically kept in his home in another state.

Case Background

The defendant was arrested in March of 1990. Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms had tracked him from his home in Missouri to Texas. The agents watched him for a few days and acquired evidence to identify him as the buyer of a large amount of drugs. After concluding that the defendant had completed the purchase and was going to leave Texas with the drugs the agents alerted the local police. The police pulled him over and found 30 pounds of marijuana (marijuana possession) in the trunk of the car and a pistol in a sock on the floorboard behind the driver’s seat.

Published on: February 10, 2013

Defendant Appeals Sentence for Conspiracy to Possess and Distribute Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing his 168 month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana. He argues that the district court made a mistake when they applied a two level enhancement for firearm possession because there was insufficient evidence that a co-conspirator possessed the firearm.

Case Background

The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. The defendant and another individual were found to be the organizers of a marijuana distribution operation. The two men would set up residences that were known as “traps.” These locations would be the storage facilities for large amounts of marijuana. The contraband would be stored and distributed from these traps.

Published on: February 8, 2013

Court Discusses Drunkeness by Drug Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The main issue in this case is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to show marijuana possession by the defendant. The defendant has been found guilty on the charge of possession of marijuana in court without a jury.

Case Background

The testimony from the case shows that the defendant was observed by two police officers leaning out of a parked car in a residential area. The officers came over to the car to investigate and questioned him. The defendant supplied answers that were incoherent and confused. The physical appearance of the defendant was disheveled.

Published on: February 8, 2013

Immigration Issues Complicate a Drug Possession Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is 39 and a citizen of Italy. He is currently living in Florida. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service has moved to have him deported to Italy on the ground that he has overstayed his six month visa that was granted to him when he entered the United States and that he has been convicted of possession of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has applied for readjustment. The Immigration Court denied the application for readjustment and upheld the ground for deportation.

Case Background

The defendant left Italy in 1956 and lived in Scotland for a while and then in the Bahamas. He was arrested for marijuana possession while living in the Bahamas. He paid a fine of $600 instead of serving the 120 sentence.

Published on: February 7, 2013

Defendant Appeals Sentence of Intent to Distribute Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing the 97 month sentence that has been opposed upon him for his guilty plea to the charges of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (marijuana possession).

Case Background

The defendant agreed that he participated in a conspiracy to acquire and distribute quantities of marijuana. He also agree that he along with the two co-defendants provided marijuana to others during a two year time frame. The defendant also agreed that he along with his co-defendants delivered over 100 kilograms to another individual and the marijuana would be stored at that residence and the individual would distribute it.

Published on: January 29, 2013

Drug Crime Defendant Moves for Acquittal for Failure to Prove Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged on several drug related charges including possession of cocaine and heroin, possession of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin possession, with the intent to sell, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was convicted on the charges of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell, trafficking cocaine, and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. He was sentenced to five years for the marijuana charge, ten years for the trafficking cocaine charge, and five years for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell.

Case Background

Published on: January 28, 2013

Defendant Contends Court Has Insufficient Evidence to Sustain a Drug Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case is seeking to have his conviction reversed. He was convicted of possession of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question before the court is whether or not the evidence in the case is enough to sustain the conviction.

Case Background

At the time the appellant was charged with the offense he was a college student and had a female companion who was also a student. He frequently visited the female companion’s apartment, sometimes during the evening and sometimes he stayed the night.

Published on: January 26, 2013

Court Weighs Plaintiffs Injuries Against Applicable Insurance Law

by Stephen Bilkis

A motion by the accused woman for an order awarding her summary judgment dismissing the claims of the complainant that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law is granted.

A cross-motion by the complainant husband for an order awarding him summary judgment dismissing the accused woman’s counterclaim as defendant was solely liable for the happening of the accident is also granted.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that viewing the evidence most favorably to the accused, it is nevertheless uncontroverted that the impact between the vehicle driven by the complainant husband and the vehicle driven by the accused woman took place while the complainant husband was stopped and waiting to cross over the double yellow lines to turn into his own driveway. Moreover, the accused woman was concededly drinking prior to the accident and was arrested for drunk driving following the accident. She also pled guilty to DWI and was traveling at approximately 20 miles per hour with her foot on the gas at the time of impact. At best, the accused struck the complainant’s vehicle without crossing over the double yellow lines into the complainant’s lane and instead struck the complainant’s stopped vehicle while both vehicles were pretty much right on the line.

Published on: January 26, 2013

Court Weights Constitutionality of Sentencing for a Felony in the Third Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

The Florida state filed an appeal placing in issue the constitutionality of the provisions of law pertaining to the inclusion of prior convictions in the charging information. This was due to the ruling of the circuit court, wherein the appellees who were charged and found guilty of petit larceny and they have already been previously convicted of such crime twice. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the accused on the ground that such charges were unconstitutional which deprived the defendants’ due process and equal protection of the law. The court granted the motion, thus, the appeal was made by the state.

The issue before the court is the constitutionality of the provision of law where “upon the third or subsequent conviction for petit larceny, the offender shall be guilty of a felony in the third degree.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said this was a distinct substantive offense that can be distinguished from the statute on being considered a criminal habitual offender. Both statutory provisions provide harsher punishments for a repeated offender. As habitual offender, the previous offense shall serve as the basis of an increased penalty while the other law makes the prior offense part of the elements of the present offense charged against the felon, which must be specifically alleged and proved during trial. In the latter case, the jury must provide judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the existence of facts related to prior conviction or convictions and return a verdict as to both.

The court pointed out several cases to sustain the action of the trial judge in submitting before the jury the judgment as to the verdict of the present offense charged and as to the historical fact of prior conviction. Furthermore, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the jury is under obligation to come up with specific findings of the facts in said former convictions.

Published on: January 24, 2013

Court Discusses Act of Depraved Indifference in Murder Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 1, 2005, after spending several hours in a bar in Manhattan, at which he consumed at least six beers, the defendant attended a friend’s party in Merrick in Nassau County. He arrived at the party, which consisted of a small gathering of his friends. The house where the party was being held was approximately a five-minute drive from the Meadowbrook State Parkway. At the party, the defendant was seen consuming several alcoholic drinks. Two of the defendant’s friends who were at the party described the defendant as intoxicated or “buzzed.” However, neither one observed the defendant stumbling or staggering while he was dancing, nor was he observed to be slurring his words. A Bronx DWI Lawyer said that, the defendant remained at the party for 1 1/2 to 2 hours before leaving in his pickup truck. Despite having previously received offers to sleep over or utilize a designated driver rather than drive after drinking, the defendant chose to get into his pickup truck and drive while intoxicated.

A Bronx DWI Lawyer said that, the defendant was driving the wrong way in the southbound lanes of the Meadowbrook State Parkway, a limousine was proceeding south in the left southbound lane of the Meadowbrook State Parkway. The limousine encountered the pickup truck headed directly towards it just north of the Babylon Turnpike overpass. The limousine was carrying a family, consisting of their two daughters, seven-year-old and five-year-old, and the parents, back home from a wedding. The pickup truck collided head-on with the limousine, apparently having tracked the limousine’s movement, crushing and killing the other passenger, decapitating the seven-year-old passenger in the limousine, and causing severe, and, in some instances, life-threatening, injuries to the remaining passengers in the limousine.

A Bronx Drunk Driving Lawyer said that, the defendant was placed under arrest at the scene, and was later informed of his arrest by the Investigator of the New York State Police. Upon being so advised, the defendant told the police that from the time he had moved to New York from Arkansas the previous October, “everything was going wrong” and “nothing he did was ever enough.” The defendant recounted to the police that he had argued with his ex-girlfriend over the phone, had financial problems, had recently lost his grandmother with whom he had been close, and was very upset, depressed, and in a “self-destructive mode.”