Staten Island

Published on: April 13, 2013

Court Decides Constructive Possession in Marijuana Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was a passenger in a car where marijuana was found. He is appealing his juvenile adjudication on the two counts of possession of contraband on the ground that the evidence did not support a finding of constructive possession.

Case Background

The majority of the case against the defendant consisted of testimony of the arresting officer. The officer stated that she was on patrol during the early morning hours when she saw two young men trying to change a tire on a car located in a public parking lot. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer approached the young men and offered to help by providing light with her flashlight. The deputy stated that the young men were friendly, but acted a bit nervous and suspicious.

Published on: March 21, 2013

Defendant Claims Search Warrant Lacked Probable Cause

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendants are appealing a conviction that stems from a multi-count indictment. The first defendant appeals his conviction and sentence to life in prison for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 kg or less of marijuana (marijuana possession), and between 500 grams and 5 kilograms of cocaine, distribution of marijuana, and use of a communication facility to commission drug trafficking, and being felon in possession of a firearm.

The second defendant appeals her convictions of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or less of marijuana, and use of a communication facility to run a felony drug trafficking crime ring.

Arguments for Appeal

Published on: February 9, 2013

Evidence for Conspiracy to Possess Marijuana is Insufficient, According to Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

The first appellant in this case was convicted for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine. The second appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The third appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. This is a consolidated appeal by all of the appellants.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the first appellant argues that the evidence against him for the conspiracy charge is insufficient. The second appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient for the charge of conspiracy of possession of marijuana. He also is challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion for severance. The third appellant also argues that the evidence against him is insufficient for the charge of conspiracy of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute.

Case Facts

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: January 24, 2013

Court Rules Upon Third Petit Theft Conviction, Offense is a Felony

by Stephen Bilkis

In a court proceeding, a man filed an appeal for his conviction and sentence for felony petit theft. He asserts that the subsection of the statue convicting him does not permit consideration of convictions for petit larceny.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, petit theft is normally a misdemeanor and the law specifically provides that upon a third or subsequent conviction for petit theft, the offender shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree. Therefore, in order to be sentenced under the felony provisions, the offender must have been convicted twice previously with a petit theft (petit larceny) case. Yet, the trial court indicated that they considered two previous convictions of the man, one for petit larceny and one for attempted petit larceny, as the basis for the man’s enhanced sentence. Since the statute does not permit consideration of the attempted petit larceny conviction, the trial court erred in sentencing the man.

Consequently, the court finds no distinction between the two statutes for the purpose of sentencing. As a result, the court decided to reverse the sentence and remand the cause for resentencing.

Published on: January 23, 2013

Court Discusses Depraved Indifference to Murder Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 11, 2004, a firefighter conducting a routine building inspection discovered the body of 42-year-old woman on the roof of a building in the Bronx. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the black plastic bag covered the woman’s head and was knotted tightly around her neck. When the body was found, she was barefooted, her sweatshirt pulled up over one of her breasts and her jeans unzipped and pulled partially down. One of two beaded necklaces around her neck was broken and beads were missing. After the plastic bag was peeled from her head, a wound above her right eyebrow and a bruise to her right cheek were noted.

The building at 187th Street is privately owned and used by the City of New York as a temporary housing facility. The defendant resided in the building until May 6, 2004. The hallway of each floor of the building is monitored by two video cameras. Videos in evidence depict the defendant approaching the dead woman and entering his apartment with her on May 5 at 9:08 p.m., stepping back into the hallway and looking at the video camera on May 6 at 2:30 a.m., and carrying the woman’s body to the roof on the same day at 10:40 a.m. Shortly thereafter, the defendant is seen leaving his apartment carrying a piece of white cloth and then reentering the apartment. Five minutes later, the defendant is seen leaving the building carrying his belongings in a black plastic bag. Beads matching those on the woman’s broken necklace were found scattered throughout the defendant’s apartment by a Detective on May 13. Bloodstains were also found on the bedroom wall and door. On May 18, the Detective took the defendant into custody and escorted him to the precinct. While in custody, the defendant made a series of statements of which five were handwritten and one videotaped.

According to the defendant’s statements, the woman accompanied him to his apartment after agreeing to have sex with him in exchange for crack cocaine and money. The defendant stated that during the evening the woman attacked him and he hit her in the head to protect himself. Thereafter the woman became quiet and the defendant fell asleep. The defendant stated that upon waking up the following morning, he heard the woman’s heartbeat, but he later denied hearing it. He added that the woman was bleeding and he placed the plastic bag on her head to stop the blood from spreading and because he couldn’t stand to look at her. Thereafter, he dumped the woman on the roof, gathered his possessions and vacated the building. A grand jury indicted him for the criminal acts of depraved indifference murder and manslaughter in the first degree.

Published on: January 8, 2013

The issue in this case is whether the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective because it charged a crime of a higher degree than any of the crimes charged in the felony complaint

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 22, 2006, defendant executed in open court a written waiver of his constitutional right to be prosecuted by indictment and consented to be prosecuted instead by a superior court information charging him with first-degree of grand larceny, which requires that the value of the property stolen exceed $ 1 million. More than three months earlier, defendant had been arrested and charged in a felony complaint with second-degree grand larceny, which requires that the value of the property stolen exceed $50,000, and second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. The felony complaint charged that defendant was the head of accounts payable at Nina Footwear and had stolen approximately $700,000 from the company by issuing forged checks to himself and a codefendant. Notably, the felony complaint also alleged that defendant had admitted to the police that he had issued the checks in question and forged the signatures. Thereafter, as the minutes of the several proceedings in criminal court prior to November 22 establish, defense counsel and the prosecutor were negotiating a disposition.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said at the outset of the proceedings, defense counsel made clear that defendant had not wanted and did not want to be indicted by a jury. The court noted that a superior court information had been prepared and that the People would proceed to a jury if a disposition was not reached. After the court stated that the felony complaint charged defendant with stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from Nina Footwear, the prosecutor stated that “since the complaint was drafted, there has been a significant amount discovered on top of that. It is now over 1 million dollars.” The court then outlined on the record the disposition to which the parties had agreed: defendant would plead guilty to a superior court information charging him with first-degree grand larceny in exchange for a prison sentence of 2 1/3 to 7 years, pay some $ 100,000 in restitution and consent to the entry of judgment against him in the full amount of the theft, about $1.5 million.

Following discussions between the court and counsel, defendant signed a waiver of indictment form. As required by CPL 195.20, the written waiver of indictment contained a statement by defendant that he was aware that he had the right under the New York State Constitution to be prosecuted by a grand jury indictment, was waiving that right and consenting to be prosecuted by a superior court information, and that the information would be charging the offense specified in the written waiver and have the same force and effect as an indictment filed by the jury. Also as required by CPL 195.20, the written waiver was signed by defendant in open court in the presence of his attorney, and the consent of the District Attorney was endorsed thereon.

Published on: December 9, 2012

Defendant Claims Right to Speedy Trial Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiff’s in this matter against the defendants D.W., who is also known as A.J., W.N. who is also known as W., and C.P., who is also known as A.. This case is being heard in the Westchester County Court. The defendant, D.W. has moved for an order to dismiss the instant indictment against him claiming that his rights to a speedy trial have been violated.

Case Background

The defendants have been charged in an indictment for a number of different crimes including forcible rape and forcible sodomy of a woman over a period of time from the 25th through the 26th of November, 1992. Defendant Williams is charged with 10 separate counts of rape in the first degree and 9 separate counts of sodomy in the first degree. All three of the defendants have been charged with an additional count of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

Published on: November 26, 2012

Defendant Argues Complaint Insufficient to State Cause of Action

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in a case against the defendant S.M. This case is being heard in front of the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County. The defendant in the case has been charged with attempted sexual abuse in the second degree, attempted sexual assault in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, harassment in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant has moved to have the charges against him dismissed.

Case Facts

The complaint in this case comes from a thirteen year old girl. The defendant is a teacher at the child’s school. On the day that the incident occurred the defendant walked the child to his home. The child wanted to leave the defendant’s home and the defendant proceeded to block the doorway and would not let her leave. The child states that the defendant asked her for a kiss and she said no. She says that he moved his face into close proximity of hers and tried to kiss her. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these actions caused the child to become alarmed and annoyed.

Published on: November 4, 2012

Defendant Ordered to Attend Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program

by Stephen Bilkis

This proceeding is taking place in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in St. Lawrence County. The case deals for a judgment that is pursuant to Article 78 of CPLR that was originated by a petition made by T.J. and verified on the 13th of November, 2007. The petitioner is an inmate at the Ogdensburg Correctional Facility and is seeking an order from this court to direct that he be credited with approximately 270 days of jail time that he allegedly spent in the Suffolk County and or Willard Drug Treatment Campus against his sentence of three years that was imposed by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Additionally, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the petitioner seeks for this court directing his immediate enrollment in the DOCS Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program.

Case Background

On the third of July, 2003, the petitioner was sentenced in the Suffolk County Court as a second felony offender. His sentence was imprisonment of three to six years and was for a conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (drug possession). DOCS received the petitioner in their custody on the 14th of July, 2003. He was entitled to 67 days of jail time credit at the time. On the 29th of January the petitioner was released into parole supervision after completing the DOCS shock incarceration program.