Nassau

Published on: April 12, 2013

Court Discusses Leandra’s Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 18 November 2009, the State enacted Leandra’s Law, roughly one month after the DWI death of an 11-year-old in New York City. It demands, inter alia, that all first-time, misdemeanor DWI offenders install ignition interlock devices in every automobile they own or operate for at least 6 months; barring indigency, that offenders pay for installation and maintenance of the interlocks. However, Leandra’s Law exhibits numerous defects which put its constitutionality in question.

Meanwhile, a defendant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated or drunk driving pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Following Leandra’s Law, New York’s newest anti-DWI measure, the matter is now before the Court for sentencing under it.

Published on: March 30, 2013

Assault Charges Arise from Terrible Taxi Accident

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is charged with one count of Criminally Negligent Homicide, three counts of Assault in the Second Degree and two counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree. The charges arise from an accident in a taxicab driven by the Defendant on West Street in the vicinity of West Houston Street in Manhattan in 2006. In the accident, one of the passengers in Defendant’s taxi, either exited or was ejected from the cab and was then struck and killed by a second taxi. Three other passengers in the taxi suffered significant injuries while still in the cab when the vehicle struck a building.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the People allege that the accident was caused by a seizure the Defendant suffered. It is also alleged that the Defendant had a history of seizures and fraudulently failed to disclose this information in applications for a taxi license he filed. Based on this seizure history, his alleged deception in obtaining his taxi license, the fact that he had stopped taking seizure medications at the time of the accident and the fact that a seizure allegedly caused the accident, the People allege that the Defendant caused the passenger’s death with criminal negligence. Criminally Negligent Homicide is a Class E non-violent felony punishable by a maximum indeterminate sentence for a first felony offender, like Defendant here, of 1 1/3 to 4 years in state prison. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant is also charged with three counts of Assault in the Second Degree, a Class D violent felony, for each of the three injured victims who were present in the taxi. Defendant contends that he did not, in fact, suffer a seizure at the time of the accident. He will also apparently contend at trial that he did not, in any respect, act with criminal negligence during the accident and thus cannot be held criminally responsible for the death or injuries which occurred.

A Bronx Defense Lawyer said that, defendant moves to dismiss the three counts of Assault in the Second Degree which are charged in the indictment. The Defendant acknowledges that he would not likely be entitled to dismiss before trial charges which alleged that the Defendant had committed the crime of Assault in the Third Degree with respect to the three injured victims pursuant to Penal Law § 120.00 (3), a Class A misdemeanor, on the facts alleged here. That statute provides that a defendant is guilty of this crime when “with criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument”.

Published on: March 25, 2013

Defendants Marijuana Charges Reversed

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in the case is appealing a judgment and sentenced that found him guilty by jury verdict of a violation of the narcotics law.

Case Background

The information provided in the case charged the appellant along with five other defendants of possession of marijuana.

Published on: February 24, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple was on welfare. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they received a check from the New York Department of Social Services. They were entitled to a sum but they received a check that was over and above the sum they usually received.

On the back of the welfare check, there was an undertaking that they must inform the Department of Social Services if the check they received had a face value that was $5.00 more than the amount they used to receive.

The couple received the amount of $1500 more than they were entitled to. They cashed the checks even if they knew that the amounts were over and above the amount they were entitled to. The checks they cashed were received by them between 1969 and 1973.

Published on: January 31, 2013

Court Discusses Medical Marijuana Laws

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the United States. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the main question that is presented in this particular case is whether the Congress has the power under article 1 section 8 of the constitution to regulate commerce with several states and foreign nations includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana that is in compliance with the laws of the state of California.

California Marijuana Laws

When it comes to regulation of marijuana, the state of California has been a pioneer. The state was among the first to prohibit the possession and sale of marijuana in 1913 and as of 1996 the state was the first state to authorize marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes.

Published on: January 19, 2013

Court Discusses Dual Sovereignties Doctrine

by Stephen Bilkis

On the morning of December 15, 1971 two men and a woman were observed entering the New York residence of the husband and his wife carrying empty shopping bags or, in Grant’s case, with a collapse valise. When they departed, the three left with their once empty receptacles, filled. They were then followed to different distribution points where they were arrested. Searches conducted incident to the arrests revealed that they each had over one pound of heroin possession. A subsequent search of the couple’s residence produced large amounts of narcotics, money, weapons and drug packaging materials.

On December 28, 1971 the three were indicted by the Bronx County Grand Jury which, by five indictments, charged the three and the wife with criminal law violation through crack possession. The indictments also charged one of the three complainants with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of reckless endangerment and possession of a weapon; and the complainant couple with two counts each of possession of weapon and criminally using drug paraphernalia.

Thereafter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said in November, 1972 the complainants and 14 others were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute narcotic drugs. The indictment set forth 18 overt acts that the complainants allegedly committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, the last of which stated that the three together with the husband did distribute and possess with intent to distribute a total of eight and one-half (8 1/2) kilograms of heroin hydrochloride, and, in addition, did obtain $70,000 income and resources from prior heroin distributions.

Published on: January 12, 2013

Court Discusses “Suitable Residence” Requirement for Defendant’s Parole

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.

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.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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: December 28, 2012

Court Decides Whether Prior DUI Convictions are Allowed as Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 11 October 1988, the petitioner was charged in the circuit court with three traffic-related offenses. One of the charges was for DUI (DWI) in violation of the Florida Statutes, to wit: that any person who is convicted of a fourth or subsequent DUI violation is guilty of a felony of the third degree. However, the information filed charging the petitioner made no mention of any specific prior DUI convictions, nor did the state before trial provide the petitioner any details of the alleged prior convictions. At arraignment, petitioner moved to dismiss or to transfer the matter to the county court, contending that because the information did not inform him of what specific prior offenses he allegedly committed, the information did not adequately charge the felony, and therefore the circuit court had no jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the motion. Consequently, the jury found petitioner guilty of DUI. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after denying the petitioner’s renewed motion to dismiss, the court immediately adjudicated petitioner guilty of third-degree felony DUI and sentenced him to four and one-half years’ imprisonment. Thereafter, the district court reversed on the ground that the felony prosecution in circuit court was improper because the information merely charged petitioner, in effect, with three misdemeanors. The district court expressed conflict with a prior court ruling which held that the state need not allege the prior DUI convictions in the charging document because of possible prejudice to the accused in the event the prior convictions were brought to the jury’s attention.

The Issue of the Case:

Published on: December 22, 2012

Court Upholds Possession with Intent to Distribute Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant’s convictions arose from a series of drug transactions which began when a certain person contacted another person and informed the latter that he had heroin for sale. The former was unaware that the latter was a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The parties and co-defendant agreed that the former would sell the informant 25 ounces of heroin for $6,000 per ounce (Drug Possession). While the co-defendant was in Mexico he ran into the defendant who offered to drive him to Texas. He agreed and the two men drove to the border. As they approached the border the co-defendant told the defendant that he wished to walk across the border and would meet the defendant on the United States side. The defendant drove the vehicle across the border while co-defendant walked across carrying the one gram sample of heroin.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant and his co-defendant drove to the informant’s apartment where they met the informant and an Agent outside the apartment. The defendant and the Agent remained outside in their respective vehicles while co-defendant and the informant went inside. When the two men left the apartment the Agent saw co-defendant hand informant a piece of paper later found to contain .12 grams of heroin. The informant gave the paper to the Agent. Co-defendant, the informant and the Agent then discussed the purchase of a test ounce and the full 25 ounce shipment. The defendant drove the co-defendant to another apartment where he met with the certain John doe while the defendant remained outside in the vehicle.

Later that evening co-defendant and the informant took one ounce of heroin to the Agent’s motel room and sold it to him for $5,000 cash. Co-defendant returned to Mexico where he processed the remaining ounces of heroin. The defendant came into the apartment while this processing was being done. The next morning co-defendant secreted heroin in the stereo speaker of his vehicle. After doing so he asked the defendant for help in replacing the screws. The two men then drove to the informant’s apartment in the United States. While en route into town co-defendant advised the defendant that what he was doing was not honest and that he should not get involved in similar “deals”. When co-defendant and the defendant arrived at the informant’s apartment the defendant carried the heroin into the apartment. Later the three men left for the Agent’s motel with the defendant driving. Co-defendant, believing they were being followed, directed the defendant to return to the informant’s apartment. Co-defendant and the informant then drove to the Agent’s motel to deliver the heroin and the defendant left. Co-defendant was arrested as he delivered the heroin to the Agent. Defendant was arrested near Hidalgo, Texas.

Published on: December 15, 2012

Court Discusses Intent in Petit Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

The appellant was charged with the criminal act of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, viz.: petit larceny. The information charged three elements: unlawful breaking, unlawful entry and the intent to commit petit larceny. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the jury found appellant guilty of two of the three elements set forth in the accusatory pleading by finding that he had made an unlawful entry with intent to commit petit larceny or entering without breaking with intent to commit petit larceny. Clearly, the verdict found defendant guilty of a crime included within the offense charged by the accusatory pleading.

The Issue of the Case: