New York

Published on: November 29, 2012

Court Decides if it Erred on Classifying Accused as a Level One Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

A man lived in his mother’s house with his sister who was a minor. One day, the man chanced upon his sister in the bathroom of their house. The man tried to rape his sister. The sister resisted and was able to escape from her brother. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she reported the incident to their mother and she reported the incident to the police.

Her brother was charged with attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. Prior to the arraignment, the lawyer for the man asked the trial court to order a psychiatric evaluation of the accused. Two psychiatrists examined the accused and they had similar findings. The first psychiatrist rendered an opinion that the accused suffered from psychiatric disorders which were not specified. A second psychiatrist rendered an opinion that the accused suffered from psychosis. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both of them agreed on the finding that the accused was a threat to himself and to others but that he was fit to stand trial because he was capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him and he can assist in defending himself. Both psychiatrists also recommended that the accused be hospitalized. For this reason, the accused was placed under the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment and ten years probation.

Published on: November 28, 2012

Court Contends Mental Hygiene Hearing was Unnecessary

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case for appeal being heard in the Third Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the State of New York. Mark S. is the appellant of the case and the State of New York is the respondent. Mark S. is appealing two orders that were made by the Supreme Court. The orders found the appellant to be to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to treatment in a secure facility.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant has an extensive criminal and psychiatric history that includes being convicted for two rapes and forcibly touching three different females. He was charged with third degree rape, third degree sodomy, and endangering the welfare of a child by having sexual relations with a girl who was less that 17 years old in June of 2003. The defendant states that the sex with the young girl was consensual and he thought that she was 17, even though he had been told that she was younger. He pled guilty to the third degree rape charge in May of 2004 to satisfy all of the charges that were made against him. He was sentenced to five months in jail and ten years of probation.

Published on: November 27, 2012

Court Discusses Concept of Double Jeopardy

by Stephen Bilkis

In April, 1973, as a result of a joint major Federal-State narcotics investigation, an indictment was filed against defendants #1, #2, and #3, along with 10 other large-scale heroin merchants, for conspiracy to violate Federal drug laws. To support the conspiracy count, covering a period from May, 1971 until the filing of the indictment, 10 particular incidents, including meetings and drug deliveries, were specified as overt acts. A number of substantive drug crimes of heroin possession were also charged.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the instant appeals arise out of a separate concurrent State prosecution in which the three defendants were charged with sale and heroin possession of dangerous drugs. The indictment states that on each of January 8, 12, and 22, 1973, Defendant #1, #2, and #3 possessed and sold over 16 ounces of heroin. These sales had neither been specified as overt acts of the Federal conspiracy nor had they been the subject of the substantive counts in that indictment.

The Federal charges were disposed of first. Defendant #1 and #3 pleaded guilty, among other counts, to conspiracy. Defendant #2 , on the other hand, went to trial and was found guilty on all counts charged. The evidence at that trial although not mentioned in the indictment included testimony concerning the three January drug sales that are the subject of the State prosecution. All three defendants received substantial Federal sentences.

Published on: November 27, 2012

Defendant Claims Grand Jury Direction was Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case against the defendant L.P. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Bronx County, Part C. The People have moved for an order to amend the direction of a duly empanelled Grand Jury from Bronx County to include the phrase “acting in concert with others” in the proof that was submitted in the case.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the 19th of February, 1986, the Grand Jury heard evidence against the defendant, L.P. in regard to crimes that allegedly occurred on the 11th of February, 1986. The incident included the defendant, two other males that were not found and a fourteen year old girl complainant. The complainant accused the defendant of accessorial sodomy and accessorial rape.

Published on: November 26, 2012

Court Discusses Blockburger Test

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for fraudulent sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, and felony petit theft. He argued that both charges arose out of the same acts, and that this double conviction should be barred by section 775.021(4)(a) and (b), Fla.Stat.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the record of this case established that Appellant told an undercover officer that he had rock cocaine for sale. He sold the officer a substance which proved not to be cocaine. For the fraudulent sale, he was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years in prison. For the felony petit theft, he received a consecutive two-year term on community control followed by three years on probation.

The Florida Legislature has announced its intent that there should be separate and multiple convictions for each statutory offense that is committed during the course of a criminal transaction or episode. In section 775.021(4)(b) the Legislature set out basically only two exceptions to this policy. Subsections 1 and 3 are encompassed by the Blockburger test: statutory offenses which require proof of all of the same elements of proof; and those that require fewer, but identical elements of proof, which are necessarily included in the elements of the greater offense. Subsection 2 excepts “degree” crimes, such as the various forms of homicide.

Published on: November 26, 2012

Defendant Contends Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of Bronx County. The case involves the People of the State of New York versus the defendant E.D..

Defendant’s Case

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on or about the 6th of August, 2011, the defendant filed a pro se motion to have his conviction of rape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and coercion in the first degree from 1977, vacated. The defendant argues that his rights regarding the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution were violated during his trial when the hospital record, including notations made by a resident at the hospital who did not testify, was admitted into evidence.

Published on: November 25, 2012

Court Determines an Error in Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellant was tried before the court without a jury and found guilty of the crime of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, to-wit, grand larceny, and of the crime of grand larceny. Separate sentences were imposed thereon for imprisonment for a period of three years, with provision for the sentences to be served concurrently.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said an appeal therefrom, it was contended that the court erred in denying appellant’s motion for acquittal on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, and further that it was error to impose more than one sentence.

Upon review of the case, the court found no reversible error therein.

Published on: November 25, 2012

Appellate Court Agrees Trial Court Erred in Disallowing Expert Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The case involves the People of the State of New York versus the defendant Q.A..

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on the second of June in 2005 at around 3:20 in the afternoon, F. U, who was thirteen years old at the time, was on her way home from school. She was going down the well lit stairs of the subway station near the corner of Essex and Delancey Streets in Manhattan. As she was descending the stairs a man she did not know approached her and asked for some change. The man stood face to face with her and she states that she did not think he was going to hurt her. She says that she looked directly at him and told him that she didn’t have any change.

Published on: November 24, 2012

Court Discusses Concept of Reasonable Suspicion

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, at the hearing, the People called two witnesses: New York Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Salvador Aceves, and New York City Police Department Detective John Reilly. The defense called no witnesses.

Agent Aceves testified that on April 3, 2008, he, along with his supervisor, K.B, and the members of his field team, conducted surveillance at West 225th Street and Broadway in Bronx County based on information received from an undisclosed source that a drug crime trafficking organization was planning to engage in a transaction that evening. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the agents were informed that the seller would arrive in a vehicle containing approximately ten to fifteen kilograms of cocaine and enter the Target parking lot located on West 225th Street near Broadway. With the cocaine remaining inside, the seller would give the vehicle to the purchaser, who would remove it, place the money inside, and return the vehicle.

A Bronx Drug Crime Lawyer said that, while conducting surveillance during the daylight hours of April 3, 2008, Agent A. observed individuals, who he referred to as the sellers; arrive in a black BMW, for the purpose of negotiating the transaction details he was advised would occur that evening. Agent A., however, neither identified those individuals nor provided a factual basis upon which to conclude they had engaged in negotiating the transaction.

Published on: November 24, 2012

Court Discusses Jury’s Pardon Power

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent was charged with and convicted of robbery of property having a value of less than $100. At trial, he requested a jury instruction on petit larceny. The court refused the request, instead instructing the jury on attempted robbery. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that on appeal, the fourth district held that the failure to instruct on petit larceny was prejudicial error and reversed the trial court. On rehearing, the district court adhered to its original opinion and certified the question which the Court now considers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue in this case is, if a defendant is convicted by overwhelming evidence of a greater offense, and the jury is instructed on an attempt to commit that offense, is the failure to instruct on the next lesser included offense, which carries a penalty less than the attempt, harmless error under the 1978 case?

The Court said that in the 1972 case, the petitioners, who had been convicted of rape, raised as error on appeal the trial judge’s refusal to give instructions as to certain lesser included offenses to the crime of rape. We refused to disturb the trial court’s decision and held that although it was error to refuse to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault and battery, it was, nevertheless, harmless error. In the said case we noted that the jury had been instructed on assault with intent to commit rape, which is “one step” below the offense of rape. The offense of assault and battery is “two steps” removed from the crime of which petitioners were convicted. Since the jury had been given the opportunity to reduce the rape charge one step, but had convicted petitioners of the more serious charge, we found that it was harmless error to fail to give the requested charge on the offense two steps removed.