Criminal Procedure

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: February 6, 2013

Court Determines Insufficient Evidence Against Defendant in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Background

Local police officers executed a search warrant at a home and when they did they found the appellant along with two other young men inside the home. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was detained in the living room with the other two men while the search was conducted. The officers found three kinds of controlled substances in the bedroom. There was also marijuana found under the kitchen sink.

The appellant was the only person that was prosecuted as a result of the search. He was charged with possession of all of the drugs that had been found in the bedroom. He was charged with possession of cocaine, marijuana possession, and possession of barbiturates.

Published on: February 6, 2013

Defendant Requests Motion for Mistrial Based on Government Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and marijuana possession. The defendant argues that the evidence in the case is insufficient to support the charges against him and that the trial court made a mistake when they denied his motion for a mistrial based on the evidence of government misconduct.

Case Background

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said this case comes from a reverse buy sting operation. The defendant asked an acquaintance of his to broker a marijuana deal. The defendant had several prospective buyers and the friend had connections. One of the connections happened to be an informant. The friend contacted the informant to set up a transaction and a meeting was arranged between the informant, the friend, and the defendant.

Published on: February 5, 2013

Court Sentences Defendant to Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with several counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument, grand larceny and scheme to defraud. The parties to the case put in issue the eligibility of the accused for judicial diversion. The defendant argued that he is entitled for the judicial diversion program since he was indicted with crime of grand larceny where such offense is included in the list for the statute to be eligible for such program and none of the other crimes he was charged were considered exclusions to the said program. The respondent questioned the felon’s eligibility because only one of the several counts of charges filed against him rendered him eligible for the judicial diversion.

The statute listed down the specific exceptions to being an “eligible defendant,” to wit, “any defendant convicted of a violent felony offense, any other offense for which a merit time allowance is not available, or a class A drug felony within the preceding ten years. Also listed as an exception is that any defendant who has previously been adjudicated a second violent felony offender or a persistent violent offender.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said such exclusions to warrant denial of being eligible for judicial diversion were not applicable to the case of the accused.

Considering that the simple and clear language of the law lead to the conclusion by the Court that the defendant was not caused to be ineligible for the program simply because he was charged with other offenses in the indictment, which was not listed in the statute entitled to the judicial diversion. Although the statutory act sets forth particular circumstances that would make a person ineligible, it failed to indicate that the charges against the defendant are mutually exclusive with the qualifying offenses or the inclusion of non-qualifying offenses in the indictment would subject the accused to ineligibility.

Published on: February 4, 2013

Defendant Charged with Aiding and Abetting Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused man along with a co-accused was convicted of robbery in the first degree. He and his co-accused had been charged with aiding and abetting the actual perpetrator; and the sole evidence linking the accused to the robbery was his own admissions. The evidence was insufficient to establish the accused man’s guilt of robbery as a principal.

The accused man’s admissions established only that he had given a gun to his co-accused who, in the accused man’s presence, then turned it over to their actual perpetrator man, whom they knew was going to use it in a robbery; and that after the robbery, and an ensuing homicide in which a police officer was killed, the accused cut his actual perpetrator’s hair in an effort to help him evade capture. It is indisputable that the accused was never present during the actual commission of the robbery and it is not claimed that he ever shared in the robbery proceeds.

Clearly, the accused did intentionally render assistance to the actual perpetrator. However, to be criminally liable for the robbery itself, he must also be shown to have shared the same specific intent or mental culpability as the actual perpetrator, and this was not done. The transfer of the weapon to the actual perpetrator, without more, is at best equivocal; and the subsequent cutting of the actual perpetrator’s hair is of little or no probative value, since it was the intervening killing of a police officer and not the robbery which obviously gave rise to the extensive manhunt. In other words, while the accused may be guilty of other crimes, such as criminal facilitation and hindering prosecution, the circumstantial evidence was not at all inconsistent with his innocence of the crime of robbery itself.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Student Suspended for Marijuana Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

Outside of the guidance counselor’s office at the high school, a student was found sleeping. His skin was gray and he appeared to be extremely sick. The student was transported to the hospital and it was determined that he had consumed marijuana while on his lunch break. The student claimed that he had received the marijuana from the appellant right before lunch at her locker.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was questioned and admitted that she gave him the marijuana. She did not say where the exchange took place. The school contacted her parents and told both the appellant and her parents that an extended suspension would be recommended.

The student who took the marijuana dropped out of school. During the suspension hearing the appellant stated that she gave the other student marijuana, but the exchange did not take place on campus, although she did state that she had taken the marijuana from her locker. The school board found her guilty of possession and she was suspended.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Defendant Contends 6th Amendment Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants in this case were convicted of one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellants argue that the Speedy Trial Act as well as the 6th amendment barred them from being prosecuted. The appellants also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that was submitted against them.

Case Fact

The appellants were indicted and convicted based on a reverse sting operation conducted by a DEA agent acting undercover. The agent used a confidential informant who advised people within the community that she knew someone that wanted to sell marijuana.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Defendant Charged with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with a juvenile who was charged with marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia. An adjudicatory hearing was held and the court determined that the evidence was enough for the allegation of possessing drug paraphernalia, but dismissed the charge of possession of marijuana. The juvenile is appealing the ruling that did not dismiss the possession of drug paraphernalia stating that the trial court made an error.

Case Background

A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said while at school the juvenile’s backpack was searched by a school police officer. The officer found a plastic case that had a green leafy substance inside. The container also had a glass ear dropper that had been turned into a pipe. The makeshift pipe had residue on it.

Published on: February 2, 2013

Court Discusses Constructive Possession in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The case before the court is one of appeal from a conviction of possessing more than five grams of marijuana. The appellant was charged with possessing more than five grams of marijuana (marijuana possession), possessing hashish, and possessing PCP. The appellant was acquitted for the possession of hashish and PCP charges.

Case Background

In April, officers executed a search warrant of the home that is owned by the appellant. The residence had been under surveillance for about a year before the warrant was issued. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that during that year the appellant had been seen coming and going from the house on several occasions.

Published on: February 1, 2013

Defendant Contends Police Lacked Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Background

The police responded to a citizen’s report that marijuana was being grown in an open field. When the police officer arrived at the area described he found between 40 and 50 marijuana plants growing about a hundred yards from a home that was occupied. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he reported the find and the next day he and another officer returned to dig the plants up.

When the officers were gathering the plants the appellant of this case drove up to the house located near the field. The appellant got out of his care and one of the officers called him over. The officer asked him if he owned the home and he said no, but one of his friends did. The officers asked if the owner was home and the appellant told them to come to the house to find out.