Drug Possesion

Published on: December 17, 2012

Court Decides Parole for Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

Petitioner is an inmate at a correctional facility at Franklin County. He filed the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to question his imprisonment under the custody of the New York correctional services wherein the accused asserted the limitations and conditions set for his particular residence amounted to question his custody by the law enforcement agency and he further alleged that his period of assessment for his final parole had already expired that granted his release to a parole supervisor.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in 1997, the inmate was sentenced for incarceration for a period of 7 to 14 years. Later in 2006, he was released under the parole supervision but was afterward revoked then again restored that placed him at a drug treatment campus. Then a year after, petitioner violated his community-based parole supervision, as such, he was returned to the custody of correctional services as a parole violator. He then again violated his most recent release under parole supervision in year 2008. He had several counts of violation of release and such report was served and given to him at a county jail where he was detained for new criminal charges.

A final parole hearing was conducted for the revocation of petitioner’s final parole wherein he pleaded guilty for the violation of the conditions set for his release under parole supervision, specifically, a crime for possession of marijuana found inside his room (drug possession). The defendant’s parole was revoked and was given a delinquent time assessment, which will expire after 16 months from the date of the revocation hearing. During the period of assessment, the felon had existing rape charges against him and was later on convicted for crimes of sexual misconduct and endangering the welfare of a child, as such, petitioner was declared as a “sex offender.”

Published on: December 16, 2012

Court Discusses Alleged Heroin Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

A Georgia Intent to Distribute Lawyer said that, the defendant appeals his conviction after trial to a jury for conspiring to possess cocaine (drug possession) with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846, and to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). This court recently affirmed an earlier conviction of defendant for conspiracy to possess and to distribute heroin. On the present appeal a Georgia Heroin Lawyer said that defendant contends that the government arbitrarily has carved a single conspiracy to deal in narcotics into separate heroin and cocaine conspiracies in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

A Georgia Heroin Lawyer said that, the government’s proof in the heroin conspiracy trial established that defendants arranged sales of heroin for their cocaine customer a Detective, who unknown to them was an undercover DEA Agent. Co-defendant, who pled guilty, and the Detective testified against defendant in both trials. The government presented to the jury portions of defendant’s own testimony from the heroin conspiracy trial in the trial on the cocaine conspiracy charge. During July 1976, conspiratorial negotiations involving cocaine and heroin went on simultaneously. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the major events proven in defendant’s trial on the heroin conspiracy charge which we discussed in our earlier opinion affirming that conviction, were also central to the government’s proof against defendant’s in the trial on the cocaine conspiracy charge.

The issue in this case is whether defendant’s claim for double jeopardy should be granted.

Published on: December 14, 2012

Defendant Uses “Agency Defense” in Heroin Possession Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant has been convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance (drug possession) in the first degree (Penal Law, § 220.43) for allegedly selling a pound and a half of heroin to two undercover police officers in Manhattan. At the trial the defendant denied selling the drugs and testified instead that he had simply acted as the agent of the buyers, by locating a seller and helping the officers complete the purchase.

On this appeal the defendant claims that the trial court erred in charging the jury that he could only be considered an agent of the buyers if he acted “purely gratuitously” and that if he received “any benefit, however slight, from having participated in the transaction, he would not be an agent (of the buyers), but a seller.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the prosecutor takes the position that the defendant was not prejudiced by the charge because the evidence, particularly the defendant’s own admissions at the trial, conclusively shows that he was not acting solely as an agent of the buyers. The People also urge that the so-called “agency defense” has been interpreted too broadly by the Appellate Divisions and should either be abandoned or applied only to a narrow class of cases.

The indictment charging the defendant with selling heroin to two undercover police officers on May 30, 1974 was the result of a joint State and Federal narcotics investigation which had begun in January of that year.

Published on: December 4, 2012

Court Discusses Drug Crime of Facilitation

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant L. is charged with facilitating a felony with respect to a “buy and bust” operation, in that, as reflected in the indictment “the defendant L. believing it was probable that he was rendering aid to T.P., a person who intended to commit a drug possession crime, did engage in conduct which provided such person with the means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aided such person to commit a felony.”

With the respect to the events underlying the indictment, the grand jury minutes contain the following testimony by the undercover officer, which constitutes all of the evidence as to the defendant’s conduct on October 9, 2006:

“I approached J.B. [defendant L.] and asked him if anybody was out. J.B. stated to me that he was looking too. So then we went together to the front of 1930 Grand Concourse. At that point in time we met with T.P., and J.G. stated to us to go inside the building. So then we went inside the building. I went in the rear with J.B. and J.G.. We walked to the rear of the building to the first floor, up one flight of stairs. At that point in time J.G. stated to me, “How many do you want?” I stated to him, “Two.” He then handed me two glassines which contained alleged heroin which was ink-stamped, “Magic.” I then handed J.G. $20 prerecorded buy money. At that point in time, as we were leaving, J.B. stated to me that I had to like “hook him up.” He then took one glassine from my hand.”

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.