Articles Posted in Drug Possesion

A Suffolk Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered October 22, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

The issue in this case is whether the evidence should be suppressed.

The court in deciding the case said that, preliminarily, it note that the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing sufficiently established the existence of probable cause to arrest the defendant. An experienced narcotics officer testified that, in an area which is known for its high incidence of narcotics trafficking, he observed the defendant exchange several small clear plastic bags for a sum of United States currency. This officer, together with his partner, thereafter followed the defendant into a nearby establishment, known as the “Blue Room”. Several patrons alerted the defendant to the fact that the police had arrived upon the scene, and the defendant was observed by both officers throwing a small plastic bag toward the bar area. The officer subsequently retrieved the bag, and discovered that it contained what he believed to be cocaine. The retrieval of the plastic bag discarded by the defendant, which appeared to contain cocaine, provided the necessary probable cause to arrest him.

Continue reading

Defendant agreed to assist a confidential informant in obtaining a substantial quantity of peyote, a controlled substance. The confidential informant telephoned defendant and arranged the sale which formed the basis of the instant criminal charges. Thereafter, the informant and an undercover police officer drove to defendant’s home in Nassau County, picked up defendant and then proceeded, in the officer’s car, to New York County where the actual sale was to occur. Upon arrival in New York County, the officer gave criminal defendant $120, the agreed purchase price of the drugs. The officer and the informant then waited in the officer’s car while defendant went to an undisclosed location to make the purchase. Defendant returned with the drugs a short time later and gave them to the officer. The three men then returned to Nassau County.

Later, defendant was indicted by a Nassau County Grand Jury and charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Prior to trial, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that the Nassau County Court lacked geographical jurisdiction of the offenses charged. This motion was denied. At the close of the People’s case and again at the close of all the evidence, the defendant renewed his motion to dismiss. Each time the trial court denied the motion, ruling that it was for the jury to determined whether facts sufficient to support jurisdiction in Nassau County had been demonstrated.

In this case, the petitioner (hereafter “the landlord”) is the owner of the residential real property premises. The landlord owns nineteen separate residential rental houses and now operates twelve rental units as boarding houses for United States Veterans. In these houses each tenant leases a single bedroom and shares common areas of the house with numerous other veteran/tenants. The parties to this action executed a one year written lease wherein respondent was granted occupancy of a bedroom. The cost to the tenant was $500 per month. The lease contains a rider which refers to “house rules” which govern tenants behavior and which prohibits their alcohol and non-prescription drug use. The subject premises was occupied by at least five veterans in June of 2006.

A Suffolk County Burglary attorney said that though only two such veterans testified in the context of this trial, the Court is cognizant of three other veterans who were recently dispossessed from the subject premises following their entry into stipulations filed with this Court, in other eviction proceedings instituted by petitioner. Contrary to paragraph #’s 6 and 53 of the lease, the petitioner did not pay the water bill at the premises which resulted in an interruption of service. The veteran tenants of the facility thereafter had to place the water utility in their name and pay the charges for same. The electric utilities were in the landlord’s name when the respondent took occupancy. The initial practice between the parties was for each tenant to pay his proportionate electric bill share to the landlord in cash, who would then pay the bill to the electric authority. No arson or domestic violence was involved.

In February 2006, the landlord refused to pay the electric bill and said utility was turned off. Several days thereafter, the electricity was restored after a local charity paid the bill for the veterans. It is a disputed fact as to whether the respondent/veterans paid the $800 electric bill in cash to the landlord. A large menacing man moved into an accessory structure on the lease premises in May 2006. He engaged in open crack cocaine use and in harassing and menacing behavior towards the veterans which resulted in the police being called on at least four occasions by the respondent and other veterans. It is disputed as to whether this man had the permission of the landlord to reside on the premises. The landlord averred at trial that he was a trespasser.

Continue reading

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered October 21, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence of an indeterminate term of 15 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree under counts one and three, 8 1/3 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree under count two, and 5 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree under count four, the sentences under counts one and two to run concurrently to each other and the sentences under counts three and four to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to the sentences imposed under counts one and two.

A Suffolk Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, in another case, defendant appealed from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered December 12, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment on the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and a concurrent term of one year imprisonment on the conviction of resisting arrest.

The issue in this case is whether the sentence imposed by the court in this criminal case is excessive.

Continue reading

This is a criminal action wherein, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

A Suffolk County Drug Possession attorney said that the defendant was charged with one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree in connection with the sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer. Later on, after lengthy plea negotiations in which the defendant endeavored to secure the District Attorney’s recommendation for a sentence of lifetime probation, he agreed to plead guilty to the reduced charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree in exchange for a commitment to impose sentence of an indeterminate term of three years to life imprisonment, the minimum period of incarceration permitted upon a conviction of a class A-II felony.

During the plea allocution, the defendant admitted that he had, while acting with another, sold a quantity of cocaine in excess of two ounces to an undercover police officer. The defendant’s attorney asked the court to defer formal acceptance of the plea because he wished to have his client continue cooperating with law enforcement authorities, and wanted to leave open the possibility that the District Attorney would recommend a sentence of lifetime probation.

This proceeding originated from an appeal filed by a man. A man, who is an inmate at one of the correctional facility, is challenging an officer’s failure to enroll him in the treatment program despite the alleged order of the man’s sentencing court.

The man was sentenced as a second felony offender, to a determinate term of imprisonment of five years upon his conviction of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled drug substance in the third degree. On that same day, the court issued an order directing to enroll the man in a treatment program, provided that the man will satisfy the legal eligibility criteria for participation in such program.

Sources revealed that the treatment program was designed to prepare chemically dependant inmates for a return to the community, to reduce recidivism, by providing them education and counseling focused on continuing abstinence from all mood altering substances, and to encourage participation in self-help groups. There was no arrest for the crime of arson.

Continue reading

A man initiated an appeal from a decision convicting him of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of the branch of the man’s motion which sought suppression of physical evidence.

Consequently, the court ordered to reverse the previous decision and the branch of the man’s motion is granted while his indictment is dismissed. The case then was remitted to the Supreme Court. There was no bail.

The complainant’s evidence revealed that the man’s car was stopped by two police officers. Soon after, another officer, who was also patrolling the area, arrived at the scene. Even if the officers had not called for assistance, the officer who recently arrived testified that he left his car and walked towards the man’s car in order to check the inspection sticker on the windshield. As he walked from the back to the front of the man’s car, on the driver’s side, he happened to look down and saw a bag, lying on its side on the floor behind the driver’s seat. He noticed a white substance and some pills protruding from the top of the bag.

Continue reading

In January 2003, the petitioner was sentenced in Supreme Court, Nassau County, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 3 to 6 years upon his conviction of the crime of Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance 3°. Although the record before the Court is less than clear, it would appear that in April 2005, while at liberty from custody, the petitioner was arrested on new criminal charges. Thereafter, the petitioner was sentenced in connection with the new charges, as a second felony offender, to a determinate term of 2 years with 2 years of post-release supervision upon his conviction of the crime of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Drug Substance 5°.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that the appellant was received back into custody. After applying 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of potentially available good time the petitioner’s conditional release date was recalculated as October 2007. Forty-five days of petitioner’s good time was recommended lost upon disposition of a Tier III Superintendent’s Hearing conducted in November of 2006. At that hearing petitioner was found guilty of violating inmate rules 108.14 for temporary release violation, 113.25 for drug possession and 114.10 for smuggling. A gun was not found.

Approximately four months before petitioner’s re-calculated conditional release date the it was met to consider the petitioner’s file and decide upon a recommendation as to the amount of good behavior allowance to be granted. Thereafter, the petitioner was notified that it was determined that there may be sufficient reason not to recommend the granting of all his potentially available good time, other than time lost as a result of the Superintendent’s Hearing, and that a formal hearing had been scheduled. The stated reason for such hearing was as follows: “Disciplinary-recommended loss of good time; regression (drug possession).” Following the hearing, there was a recommendation for the withholding of all of petitioner’s potentially available good time. The stated reasons for the recommendation were as follows: “Loss of good time due to temporary release violation and drug possession. The program is a requirement. Will reconsider good time upon successful completion of the program.” The recommendation was confirmed by the Superintendent of the Ogdensburg Correctional Facility, and ultimately affirmed by the Commissioner’s designee. This proceeding ensured.

In March 1983, the respondent New York State Liquor Authority (the Authority) issued an on-premises liquor license to the petitioner for its premises. Thereafter, the license was renewed annually upon application. By notice, the Authority instituted a proceeding pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 118 to revoke petitioner’s license, upon charging him of permitting the storage, possession, trafficking or sale of a controlled substance on the licensed premises in violation of subdivision 6 of Section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and of four counts of the crime of Cocaine Sale of a controlled substance in the Third degree, New York Penal Law, Section 220.39, a Class B Felony, was of such improper nature as to warrant revocation, cancellation, or suspension of its license in accordance with Rule 36.1(n) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority.

A Suffolk County Criminal lawyer said that the petitioner entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charges and a statutory hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge. The only witnesses to testify at the hearing were an undercover police officer and the principal stockholder of petitioner corporation. The undercover officer testified that on the four dates in issue cocaine was purchased on the premises and that on the initial date, defendant identified himself as the owner of the premises. The officer further testified that defendant was arrested for cocaine sale of a controlled drug substance in the third degree.

Admitted into evidence was a Suffolk County Police Department Court Disposition Report indicating that defendant pleaded guilty to attempted cocaine sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, in full satisfaction of a multicountindictment. The report also indicated that he was sentenced to six months in the County Jail and five years probation.

Continue reading

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered June 18, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

A Suffolk Drug Possession Lawyer said that, two New York State Police Troopers observed the defendant driving in a reckless manner, at very high speeds, upon the Southern State Parkway at 4:00 A.M. As the defendant left the parkway, the Troopers stopped his car, approached with guns drawn, directed him to exit from his car, and immediately conducted a search of his person, informing him that he was under arrest for reckless driving. A search of the defendant’s pockets disclosed, inter alia, several foil packets which contained a white powdered substance. The subsequent search of the interior of the automobile revealed a closed brown, paper lunch bag which was found to contain a plastic bag holding more of a white powdered substance. Subsequent laboratory analysis confirmed that some of the material found in the paper bag was cocaine. Robbery and domestic violence were no involved.

A Suffolk Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, on appeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that the search of his person and the automobile was improper and that the fruits of this search should have been suppressed. In this regard he alleges that the State Troopers used his reckless driving as a pretext to conduct the illegal search, where the alternative of issuing a summons was available to them.

Continue reading