Brooklyn

Published on: January 16, 2013

Consent to Search Questioned

by Stephen Bilkis

Seldom has this Court considered a more spectacular or bizarre case than this habeas corpus petition of an experienced Texas criminal lawyer, former mayor of the City of Pasadena, Texas, who was found guilty in Texas State Court of being the mastermind and accomplice in an especially brutal and horrible assault and robbery, but who contends that he was invalidly convicted in violation of federal constitutional rights.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, S.H. is presently serving a sixty-year sentence imposed by the Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas. A jury found him guilty in a separate trial as an accomplice to the crime of robbery by firearms, committed by principals J.Y., C.S., and S.H. SH has appealed from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

On appeal Hoover has asserted two claims of error to the denial below of his habeas corpus petition based on federal constitutional grounds. First, he contends that the Court erred in refusing to sustain alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The State Trial Court admitted into evidence two diamonds seized from SH’s home during a nighttime search conducted by the Houston Police Department. SH argues that the search was made without his voluntary consent, by police officers acting under color of a search warrant which was invalid. Secondly, SH asserts that his right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was infringed when the State Trial Court admitted into evidence the oral confession of alleged principal and co-indictee CS. The confession, which also implicated SH as an accomplice, was admitted during the testimony of Officer C. V. Stone to whom CS confessed, pursuant to a well-established Texas exception to the hearsay rule which allows the confession of a principal to be admitted at the trial of an accomplice to prove the principal’s guilt, proof of such guilt being a necessary prerequisite to conviction of an accomplice to the offense.

Published on: January 6, 2013

Defendant Contends He Was Improperly Sentenced in Grand Larceny Offense

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR to prohibit respondent Covington, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Bronx County from vacating petitioners’ convictions and the sentences imposed thereon in violation of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Law, and to prohibit respondents J.C. and P.G., District Attorney, Bronx County, from further prosecution of the petitioners on felony charges.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on July 7, 1987 petitioners pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in the third degree. All parties apparently thought that defendants were pleading guilty to an “E” felony, since grand larceny in the third degree is a “D” felony. Accordingly, defendant Wilson was sentenced as a predicate felon to 1 1/2 to 3 years in prison.

A Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, attempted grand larceny in the third degree became a “D” felony on November 1, 1986. At the time of the commission of the acts alleged in the indictment, May 14, 1986, grand larceny in the third degree was an “E” felony and attempted grand larceny in the third degree an “A” misdemeanor. Thus, the defendant was improperly sentenced to felony time that is 1 1/2 to 3 years in prison. A Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, petitioner W. commenced his sentence. Following the discovery of the error, the trial court vacated the sentence and conviction and reinstated the original felony charges. On February 23, 1988 this court granted a stay of the prosecution pending determination of this Article 78 proceeding.

Published on: January 2, 2013

Court Discusses Conspiracy to Sell Drugs Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court ruled that the indictment against the defendant be reinstated.

During 1981 police officers conducted a large-scale investigation into the distribution of narcotics in New York, Queens and Bronx counties. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the investigation, which included a number of drug purchases by an undercover officer and involved the extensive use of electronic eavesdropping and surveillance, led to seven indictments charging the 12 subjects of the investigation, among them defendant, with conspiracies to sell narcotics, and with the sale and possession of heroin and cocaine. The charges against defendant were based on his alleged participation in heroin sales to the undercover officer on June 26, August 19, and September 11, 1981, and an attempted heroin sale on September 24, 1981. As a result defendant were charged in one of the indictments with one count of conspiracy in the second degree for their activities from May 28, 1981 to September 22, 1981. They were also charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance (drug possession) in the second degree and four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree for the August 19 and September 11 sales.

Trial Term dismissed the indictment against defendant, finding that that evidence was insufficient as to him to make out a prima facie case for either the sales or the conspiracy.

Published on: December 25, 2012

Defendants Claim Court Erred in Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A building containing offices and retail establishments was broken into and burglarized. Moments after the silent alarm system went off, the appellants, along with a third person, were found inside including various tools that were apparently used in the burglary. Consequently, appellants were charged and convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, viz: grand larceny, petit larceny and possession of burglary tools. They were each sentenced to fifteen years for the breaking and entering conviction, 60 days in the county jail for the petit larceny, and five years for the possession of burglary tools, the latter to run consecutive to the former concurrent sentences.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellants now ask the court for a reversal of their convictions and sentences and argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny; that the trial court erred in disallowing the testimony of an alleged material witness; and that the trial court erred in imposing three separate sentences for the three offenses inasmuch as the petit larceny and possession of burglary tools were but facets or phases of the breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny.

Published on: December 12, 2012

Court Discusses Grand Larceny vs. Petit Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A man knocked on an apartment door. He claimed to be delivering something for the resident in the apartment. He asked the resident for some personal identification. The resident of the apartment left the apartment door open and left the man at the door while she went inside the apartment to get her ID. A New York Criminal Lawyer with the apartment door left open, a television set can be seen which was put on a stand situated very near the open apartment door. On the floor near the television, there were sweaters scattered all over. The man took the TV and the sweaters on the floor.

The man was seen by another delivery man who was making a delivery in a nearby apartment at the same time. He saw the bogus delivery man go inside the apartment and leave holding the TV set and the sweaters. He also saw the bogus delivery man leave the apartment and ride a bike while carrying the TV set and the sweaters. The delivery man followed the bogus delivery man and saw that at the nearest corner, the bogus delivery man dropped the TV and the sweaters. He left them there on the street where they fell. And he rode the bike all the way to a nearby restaurant. At the restaurant premises, the bogus delivery man left the bike. He went to the parking area of the restaurant and rode in a car. The delivery man wrote down the license plate of the bogus delivery man’s car. When a police cruiser came by, the delivery man told them his story and gave them the license plate of the bogus delivery man. He also led them to the spot where the TV and the sweaters were dropped.

The bogus delivery man was later arrested. He was charged with two crimes in one information: he was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The bogus delivery man moved for a trial without a jury. The man was convicted with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny but he was convicted only of petit larceny and not grand larceny because the prosecution failed to prove that the properties taken were valued beyond $100.

Published on: December 4, 2012

Defendant Contests Risk Assessment Designation

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant W. was arrested for acting in concert with J.S. in allegedly committing the crimes of Kidnapping in the First Degree (Penal Law § 135.25 [1]), Rape in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]), Sodomy in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1]), and Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree (Penal Law § 135.10), against one Sabrina on May 3, 2000, in the vicinity of East 233rd Street and White Plains Road in Bronx County. Defendant and co-defendant J.S. were subsequently indicted for all of the above charges. In the felony complaint, it was alleged that Defendant and J.S. detained S. in a car and refused to let her leave when she requested to do so. Further, when she attempted to get out, she was pulled back inside and her mouth covered when she tried to scream for help. Defendant and J.S. then held S. down while Defendant inserted his penis into her vagina and J.S. inserted his penis into her mouth, both without her consent. At the time of his arrest, when told that he was being charged with rape, Defendant responded, “I kind of had that feeling.” He was subsequently identified by both Sabrina and an eyewitness in separate corporeal lineups.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, in the course of the Grand Jury presentation, it was established that S. was with her friend R. R. knew Defendant and talked to him while S. was standing close by. S. and R. got into the back seat of the vehicle. When R. got out purchasing some cigarettes or marijuana, Defendant drove off with S. S. called to R. for help. However, S. pulled her back into the car. Defendant proceeded to drive to a parking lot. He then got into the back seat, grabbed S’s thigh and demanded that she place his penis into her mouth. Thereafter, Defendant removed S’s pants, held her hands down, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her against her will. L.S. then inserted his penis into S’s mouth and masturbated into her mouth while Defendant held her hands down as she was repeatedly shouting, “No.” L.S. then struck S. in the mouth. Afterwards, Sabrina was driven to within one block of her home and forcibly thrown out of the car.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said DNA tests performed on the victim and Defendant revealed that his semen and that of another male were found on a vaginal swab of the victim as well as on her panties.

Published on: November 28, 2012

Court Decides Fourth Amendment Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 26, 2001, Detective McSherry, Sergeant MC and Police Officer F., assigned to anticrime patrol in an unmarked Chevrolet Blazer and traveling northbound on Valentine Avenue in Bronx, were stopped at a red light at the intersection of Valentine Avenue and 184th Street, a high crime area. The Chevrolet Blazer was the first in line at the red light. Detective MS and Sergeant MC, both in plain clothes, sat in the front of the vehicle. Sergeant MC was the driver. Officer F., in uniform, was a passenger in the rear of the vehicle.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, while they were stopped, Detective MS observed three young males, one of whom was appellant, crossing the street in front of their vehicle. MS testified that as the trio passed in front of the Blazer, they looked inside. One of the three “did a double take” and all of them “appeared to become startled.” Although the three males stayed together, their pace quickened. When they reached the other side of the street, walking southbound on the sidewalk, appellant separated from the group and, “walking closer to the building than the other two” “made a gesture like he’s putting something down by the building, by a doorway in the building which would lead to an alley.” As the detective explained, “He made a motion with his hand which looked to me he was casting something away, putting something down.” Appellant then joined the other two young men, who were walking southbound on Valentine Avenue.

The police vehicle then made a U-turn and pulled up alongside the three boys. Detective MS and Officer F. rolled down their windows “to gauge their reaction.” Appellant “turned, looked at their car, looked right at MS,” “panicked” and “took off running southbound on Valentine.” The other two young men remained standing where they were.

Published on: November 11, 2012

Court Discusses Doctor Patient Privledge

by Stephen Bilkis

Hospitals in 1955 were required by the statutory law of New York to report all procedures that involve the termination of a pregnancy. The superintendent of all New York hospitals is required to report each procedure and to subdivide the procedures into categories that reflect the nature of the termination of the pregnancy. In 1955, abortions were illegal in the state of New York. The only permitted abortions were those that were necessary to save the life of the mother. This type of abortion was termed a therapeutic abortion. The only other categories of abortion were natural and illegal. A New York Criminal Lawyer said any time that a woman naturally aborts the fetus, it is called a spontaneous abortion. There is nothing that can be done to prevent a spontaneous abortion. Sometimes, nature just detects something that modern medicine cannot and the pregnancy is self terminating. The illegal abortions are called induced. An induced abortion may be caused by actions or omissions by the mother, or by some other person. Some doctors have been known to perform illegal abortions for women in the state.

New York law requires that the superintendent of a hospital to accurately report the number of therapeutic, spontaneous, and induced abortions that are performed, or that occur in their establishment. In 1955, the prosecutor in Kings county suspected that the superintendent of Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn was not ensuring that his doctors were reporting the numbers accurately. In order to determine if any illegal abortions were being performed in the hospital the prosecutor needed to be able to examine the records of all of the abortions that were performed in the hospital for that year. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said he demanded that an emergency Grand Jury be convened to demand that the hospital provide all of the medical records of all of the abortions that occurred in the hospital that year.

The superintendent of the hospital refused to provide the records. He claimed that the demand for the records of women who had committed no crimes would be an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The prosecutor filed charges of contempt of court against the superintendent of Kings Hospital following his refusal to disclose the personal information of innocent women in the state of New York who had not been charged or found guilty of any crime. In fact, there was no probable cause to suspect that any of them had been guilty of a crime. There was little more than a hunch on the part of the prosecutor that someone may have avoided being turned in for an illegal abortion in the hospital. By riffling through innocent American’s personal medical records, the prosecutor hoped to find a few who were guilty of a crime. Many women who had suffered through miscarriages would be forced to have their personal information reviewed by the court. Many who had to suffer through therapeutic abortions to ensure that they survived would have to explain their choices to a prosecutor. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the superintendent of the hospital flatly refused to deliver the medical records of the patients of his hospital to the Grand Jury for review.

Published on: October 29, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of the People of the State of New York versus the defendant, G.R. The case is being heard in the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Bronx County. The defendant has moved to set aside the sentence that has been imposed on him. He basis his argument for this motion on the ground that the sentence was unauthorized, illegally imposed, or otherwise invalid as a matter of the law.

Court Discussion

The instant case at hand deals with the Mental Hygiene Law. This law was originally enacted in April of 1966. The purpose of this law was to provide a comprehensive plan that covers the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts.

Published on: October 11, 2012

Court Hears Child Abuse Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The issue being discussed in the appeal filed before the court is whether the Louisiana child protection workers are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity for their commission of allegedly filing a false complaint that seeks to remove the custody of two children from their legal parents.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellate court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that the guilty workers are only entitled to qualified immunity in a suit for damages filed against them.

The defendants are child protection workers of Louisiana’s protective service. One of their tasks is to conduct investigations and make the necessary reports of child abuse and neglect. Upon arrival at conclusions of evidence purporting to be a case for child abuse or neglect, the workers’ findings must be submitted to the local parish district attorney without delay or they may opt to file a verified written complaint instead for any probable cause of child abuse or neglect.