New York

Published on: July 26, 2012

Parties Disagree if Defendant is Eligible for Resentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 16 October 1994, defendant was arrested for selling $20 of cocaine to an undercover police officer. On 27 January 1997, he was convicted of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree. He was sentenced as a Second Felony Offender to concurrent indeterminate prison sentences of 5 1/2 to 11 years. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said he was convicted in that case of. On 19 May 1999, defendant was released on parole.

Approximately 6 months later, he was arrested for another drug sale charge. On 4 August 2000, he pled guilty to Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a class C felony. He then apparently failed to appear in court for sentencing and a bench warrant for his appearance was issued on 28 February 2001. He was returned on that warrant a little more than two years later on 2 May 2003. He was sentenced upon that conviction on 12 June 2003 to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years.

Published on: July 26, 2012

Defendant Requests Sanctions

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this matter are Avivith and William Oppenheim. The defendants in the case are Mark Stumer, Joseph Viscuso, Mojo-Stumer Associates Architects, P.C. and d/b/a Mojo-Stumer Associates. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York located in New York County. Judge Charles Edward Ramos is hearing the case.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said thttp://www.newyorkcriminallawyer24-7.com/he plaintiffs, the Oppenheim’s made a RICO claim against the defendants based on mail and wire fraud. These claims were in connection with renovations that were being done on their apartment. This claim has been dismissed. The Oppenheim’s then made a similar claim against the defendants in a first amended complaint. This complaint was also dismissed.

Published on: July 25, 2012

Court Contends Defendant was Drug Impaired

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff of this case is the People of the State of New York. Patricia Rose is the defendant. This case is being heard in the District Court of Nassau County, First District. Judge Kenneth L. Gartner is overhearing the case.

The defendant has made a motion for the criminal charge of driving while impaired by drugs dismissed. This motion requires the court to review an area of the law that has caused conflict in recent trial court opinions from the First, Second, and Third Judicial Departments as well as the trial court and appellate court opinions.

Case Background

Published on: July 24, 2012

Defendant Charged with Criminally Negligent Homicide

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this matter is the State of New York. The respondent of the case is John VanDuyn Southworth. Southworth is responding both for himself and as the executor of the estate of Alice Keegan Southworth, deceased. The case is being heard in the Fourth Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The case before the court involves an issue involving an experimental driver’s rehabilitation program that was established by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the question before the court is whether the state of New York can be held liable for issuing an interim driver’s license to a person that has a record of alcohol related driving violations.

Case Background

Published on: July 24, 2012

Defendant Receives Mid-Trial Publicity

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant has a history of being arrested under different names.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 12 August 1972, defendant was arrested for possession of burglar’s tools while on a fire escape. He gave a name, name-one, with a date of birth of 30 December 1946 and an address of 180 Saratoga Avenue in Kings County.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Court Decides Admissibility of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 20 September 1960, some seven months after the commission of an armed robbery against a couple in Westchester County, defendant appeared at police headquarters in Cheyenne, Wyoming, requesting a pass, as an indigent, for a free night’s lodging with the Salvation Army. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said when he made a similar request the next night, the police radio dispatcher became suspicious. In response to an inquiry, defendant admitted that he could be wanted for questioning, thus, he was thereupon arrested by the jailer for vagrancy. Thereafter, a Captain was called, and defendant admitted that he might be wanted for questioning in New York on a robbery charge. The Captain then called in the resident F.B.I. agent. At about 10 o’clock that night, according to the Captain, defendant orally confessed to having committed the robbery, although he refused to sign a statement.

The following day, the Cheyenne authorities advised the Westchester authorities that defendant had been apprehended, and confirmed that defendant had, indeed, been questioned about the robbery. That afternoon he was convicted of vagrancy and sentenced to a $50 fine or 50 days, the sentence to be suspended upon completion of investigation on the New York robbery charge.

Published on: July 22, 2012

Defendant Claims Identification Process was Tainted

by Stephen Bilkis

Early morning, Charles T. Williamson took his girlfriend, Inez Goodwin, to work at where Mr. Williamson also used to work. After Ms. Goodwin entered the building, Mr. Williamson saw her speaking with defendant, Delroy Bulgin. Mr. Williamson watched this conversation for about five minutes from less than 10 feet away and then he approached them to find out what was going on. Mr. Williamson also observed that Ms. Goodwin looked uncomfortable, as though she did not want to have any problems with defendant at her workplace. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that Mr. Williamson told defendant that he did not belong there and asked him to leave. Defendant kept saying that he just wanted five minutes to talk with Ms. Goodwin, but Mr. Williamson replied that there was nothing to talk about and he should leave.

The next day, at about 5:30 a.m., a Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant’s car crashed into Mr. Williamson and Ms. Goodwin’s minivan on Noble Avenue in the Bronx. Police Officer Shawn O’Dwyer and his partner, were in uniform in a marked police car on patrol in the 43rd Precinct at that time. As the officers were traveling westbound on Story Avenue, approaching the intersection of Noble Avenue, Officer O’Dwyer heard a loud bang to his left, which he thought might have been a car accident. He saw Mr. Williamson and Ms. Goodwin in a minivan at the corner of Story and Noble Avenues. Mr. Williamson flagged the officers down, leaning out of his window and pointing behind him, indicating to Officer O’Dwyer that something was going on.

Officer O’Dwyer drove southbound on Noble Avenue and saw a gray or silver Acura about one-half block away, being driven by defendant, backing up. Defendant’s car was the only car that Officer O’Dwyer saw driving on Noble Avenue at that time. Officer O’Dwyer immediately turned his lights on in order to stop defendant’s car and investigate what he had heard, but defendant put the car in drive and drove past the police car. Officer O’Dwyer then made a U-turn and followed defendant’s car northbound on Noble Avenue, approximately 15 feet behind the Acura. At the intersection of Noble and Story Avenues, defendant failed to stop at the stop sign and turned right onto Story Avenue. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant proceeded eastbound on Story Avenue to the intersection of Story and Rosedale Avenues, where he failed to stop at a steady red traffic light and turned left onto Rosedale. Officer O’Dwyer was approximately 15 to 20 feet from defendant at this point, with both lights and sirens on. Officer O’Dwyer followed defendant’s car for a minute or two and never lost sight of it. Approximately two-tenths to two-thirds of a mile later, defendant pulled over at a 45 degree angle and exited the Acura. When defendant’s car stopped, Officer O’Dwyer saw damage to its left front quarter panel. Defendant was arrested without incident and transported back to the 43rd Precinct.

Published on: July 22, 2012

Defendant Petitions Review of Case Under DLRA

by Stephen Bilkis

New York provides that criminal offenders who have been convicted of certain drug possession crimes and related offenses have the ability to petition the court to vacate their indeterminate sentences and impose a determinate sentence. Prior to 2009, indeterminate sentences for drug crimes and other offenses were common. The concept behind the indeterminate sentence was that it allowed the court and correctional system to work together to customize a fair sentence for each offender. However, it did not take long to realize that customization could also be a synonym for prejudicial sentencing. The Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 was placed into effect to eliminate the subjective atmosphere created by the process of indeterminate sentences. Indeterminate sentences often meant that the time that one offender served was completely different from the sentence that was served by a person who committed the same crime, often a co-defendant of the same crime. The unjust diversity that befell the victims of indeterminate sentencing was the target of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009.

Under the DLRA a person who was assigned an indeterminate sentence prior to 2009 could appeal to have their sentence vacated and a new one imposed. In order to qualify for the resentencing, an offender must meet certain requirements. They must not have been convicted of certain violent felonies within ten years of the time that they file their requests. There are also other requirements that are necessary for a person to meet before they can be resentenced.

One inmate who petitioned for a review of his sentencing under the DLRA of 2009, was incarcerated based on his conviction on November 5, 2004 for the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is a class B drug felony in the state of New York. One of the requirements for resentencing under the DLRA is that the offender is an addict and needs treatment for a drug addiction rather than incarceration. This offender contended that he was not a drug dealer at all, but that he was actually an addict who was dealing to support his own habit. He requested resentencing under the DLRA.

Published on: July 20, 2012

Court Reviews Indictment for Escape from Mental Heath Facility

by Stephen Bilkis

When a mentally ill offender commits a heinous crime in New York, the judicial court has the ability to determine whether the person should be considered not responsible for his actions by reason of mental disease or defect. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in some cases, the offenders illness can make the determination of how to handle his conviction and sentencing much more difficult. The ethics that are involved in punishing mentally ill persons are complicated. Clearly, a person who is a threat to society if they are not controlled should not be allowed to terrorize innocent people. However, a person who does not understand that what they did was wrong, is also an innocent in the eyes of many people.

The courts must determine a balance that is ethically acceptable between the right of the innocent victim and the rights of the offender. When an offender is determined to be mentally ill, the court must determine if he is capable understanding the trial process and participate in his own defense. If he is not capable of assisting in his own defense, then other steps are necessary to ensure that the product of justice is attainable. Most states have now incorporated a policy that allows them to determine that a person is guilty while still being mentally ill. That is because many people have skirted the justice system in the past because they are mentally ill or suffering from some other disease or defect. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said citizens of these states have determined that allowing a person to not be punished for an offense simply because they are not responsible for their actions is not fair to the innocent victim of their acts. There is also a need for the judicial courts to protect the citizens of their states from future illegal actions that this person may likely perform.

In 1978, an offender was convicted of rape in the first degree. He was a violently mentally ill offender who was found to suffer from a mental disease or defect. The courts of New York, where his offense was committed determined that he was not able to be placed in the usual offender population because of his mental illness. However, they were also convinced that if he was released, he would recidivate. In order to prevent him from harming anyone else, they decided to commit him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene in a secure facility for treatment. He was indicted on his crimes on March of 1978. On review of his mental state, he was re-committed to the secure institution on September 3, 1981 and again on October 27, 1982.

Published on: July 20, 2012

Court Reviews ROR Motion

by Stephen Bilkis

A good criminal attorney can be the deciding factor in a criminal trial for a defendant who has been charged with an offence, in understanding the rights and restrictions that are imposed upon him. Prosecutors are only human and as such are capable of making mistakes that are common to all people. Procedural law is strict. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said only a person who has been sufficiently trained in the law is capable of deciphering the requirements that the prosecution team has to meet in order for them to obtain a conviction. When the prosecution team makes an error, it is not up to them to admit to the error. It is incumbent upon the defense team to expose the error.

The case of one defendant in New York is an example. He was charged with several misdemeanor offenses of menacing and reckless endangerment stemming from incidents that occurred between May and October of 2009. On October 12, 2009, he was arraigned on two misdemeanors. Bail was set on the charges and court date was set for October 16, 2009. On the 16th, the prosecutor served and filed an information with the court. As an oversight, the prosecution team failed to convert the misdemeanor information with a misdemeanor complaint as required. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that an information is a court document that details the facts of a case against a particular defendant. The information provides the details of the offenses and the charges that are being pursued.

The defense team filed a motion to release the defendant from custody because the complaint was not converted to an information as required by the New York State statute CPL §170.70. This statute requires that a misdemeanor complaint filed by a prosecutor of the state of New York must replace the complaint with an information within five days of the person’s incarceration. The five day rule does not include Sundays. If the complaint is not replaced with an information within five days, the statute requires that the defendant be released on his own recognizance.