Drug Possesion

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Asks to Seal Prior Convictions

by Stephen Bilkis

It is no secret that people make mistakes when they are young. It is not unreasonable to offer a second chance to those who are able to mature past their youthful indiscretions. The Rockefeller Drug Law reforms were created as a means to offer second chances to those offenders who were addicted to illegal drugs and were arrested. It requires that they submit themselves to an in-house drug treatment program while they are incarcerated, and that they successfully complete the program. These drug reform laws are directed at addicts who are encouraged to fight their addiction and become functioning members of society through intervention. These laws are not intended to provide a person who is not an addict, but who was a trafficker of narcotics a means to have their narcotics felony charges sealed.

However, on May 17, 2011, a man who was arrested in 1999 for trafficking in heroin (heroin possession) prepared a motion to the court that would allow him to have his record sealed. He stated that his felony narcotics trafficking conviction was preventing him from obtaining gainful employment. He presented transcripts from a six month drug treatment program that he enrolled himself in when he was on parole. He demonstrated that he has matured by presenting to the court, documents showing that he has successfully completed that program. He also presented several documents to the court that showed that he has completed all of the requirements to be a commercial pilot, but states that the 1999 narcotics conviction is preventing him from obtaining employment. He requests that the court seal his conviction under the drug reform laws. The court reviewed his request and had several matters that created resistance.

First, the drug treatment program that he registered for was only six months. Additionally, it was not a sanctioned program and he did not participate in it while he was under the supervision of the department of corrections. Further, the drug reform laws are directed at giving a second chance to addicts who have won their fights against their drug addiction. In this case, the defendant was not an addict. He was arrested during a heroin sale in which he contends that he was only acting as a body guard for his brothers who were the ones who were actually selling the narcotics. The court further points out that the Rockefeller laws are not intended to provide relief for felony narcotics traffickers. This case demonstrates the situation in which a man was convicted of felony narcotics trafficking eleven years ago. He is haunted by the fact that he is a convicted felon and must accept that label for the rest of his life. There are many privileges in life afforded to a person who is not a convicted felon. Once, those privileges have been taken away because of a felony drug conviction, they are noticed. Convicted felons cannot possess a firearm (possession of a weapon). Convicted felons cannot vote. Convicted felons may be searched and they have no right to privacy from their parole officers. In this case, the defendant contends that he was not actively involved in the sale of the heroin.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Claims Rape of Wife Was Allowable Due to Marriage

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 7 June 1982, defendant and his wife separated after fourteen years of marriage. Defendant moved out of their marital residence and rented an apartment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 3 November 1982, defendant was summoned and appeared before the Family Court to answer charges that he harassed his estranged wife. A Temporary Order of Protection was issued.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Contends Elements of Rape Crime Not Met

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed a motion for him to file a late notice of explanation. The man’s counsel has established good reason for late filing of the notice which is attached to the moving papers. As explained on the counsel’s letter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the alleged criminal acts occurred more than two years ago and making the notice of explanation was difficult. The state of New York noted on the record that they do not oppose the request and the notice will be deemed timely and is directed to be filed.

The second and third branches of the man’s motion concern the counts one and two of the accusation. The count one charged the man with predatory sexual assault against a child allegedly committed when the man was more than 18 years old at which he allegedly committed rape in the first degree against a female who was less than 13 years old. The count two charges was the same crime on the same legal theory against the same complainant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the counts three and four charges were a criminal sexual act in the first degree with the same victim on the same dates as alleged in counts one and two. The count five charges endangering the welfare of a child encompassing all of the conduct charged in count one through four inclusive.

The man’s counsel first argues that the court should reduce the charge in counts one and two with rape in the first degree with the rule of lenity. The counsel notes that the elements of predatory sexual assault against a child are identical to those of rape in the first degree as charged. Counsel said based on records, the predatory sexual assault against a child is a class A-II felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years to life and a maximum of 25 years to life. By contrast, rape in the first degree is a class B felony, with a mandatory determinate sentence having a minimum of five years and a maximum of 25 years, followed by at least five years of post-release supervision. The two crimes also have different plea bargain restrictions with respect to the offense against a child charge. The plea must be at least to a class C violent felony whereas the man may plead guilty to a class D violent felony in satisfaction of a charge of rape in the first degree.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Court Decides Outcome of Repeated Probation Violations

by Stephen Bilkis

Many people view juvenile delinquency as a problem that the child will outgrow. Unfortunately, violence among teenagers has become extreme with the addition of gangs and gang violence in the United States. These juveniles are often on the road to becoming career criminals no matter what actions that the courts take to attempt to rehabilitate them. One case that demonstrates this fact was decided on March 14, 2012. This case involved a young man who was adjudicated as a juvenile and placed under the supervision of the New York City Department of Probation. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that the young man was sent to an alternative placement program for juvenile delinquents. While in the placement program, the young man was arrested numerous times for extremely violent offenses. Because, he was unable to stop committing violent offenses, the Family Court probation that he was serving was revoked and he was held on Riker’s Island to await the results of his criminal trials in several different counties that were filed while he was on probation.

He was arrested in Queens County and indicted for Murder in the second degree, murder as a hate crime, felony murder, manslaughter as a hate crime, manslaughter in the second degree, robbery in the first and second degree and robbery as a hate crime. A New York Drug Possesson Lawyer was charged in gang assault in the first degree and hate crime assaults in the first degree. He was charged for several other hate crimes and weapons offenses.

He was arrested and indicted in Bronx County for robbery in the first , second, and third degrees. He was indicted for numerous gang crimes of assault, as well as grand larceny and menacing. He was also charged with weapons and stolen property offenses. In Kings county, he was indicted for attempted robbery and assaults as well as petit larceny.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Can the Agent of a Purchaser of Narcotics be Convicted of Drug Sale?

by Stephen Bilkis

This is the case wherein the court reiterated its New York rule that one who acts solely as the agent of a purchaser of narcotics cannot be convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that an undercover police officer befriended the defendant in various bars. The police officer, disguising as a drug user, thereafter mentioned to the defendant that he was interested to buy ecstacy. The defendant indicated that he might be of assistance in doing so and invited the undercover to call him whenever needed. In the course of their meeting in a bar, the police officer advised the defendant of his intention to buy cocaine or heroin. The defendant estimated the cost of the quantity of approximately four ounces of cocaine which was between three and four thousand dollars.

After some days, the defendant and the police officer proceeded in a bar in Manhattan. The defendant entered the premises alone, presumably to meet the man who was the seller. The defendant reported to the police officer that the price of the narcotics would be $4,000. The police officer paid the amount and the defendant re-entered the bar to give the payment to the seller. The two proceeded to a discotheque where the actual delivery of the drugs took place.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Defendant Convicted Several Times of Drug Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

The Defendant in this case was arrested for a drug possession crime which involves selling and possessing prohibited substance in the third degree on two different occasions. He was convicted on both instances but was given parole thereafter.

While on parole, defendant was once again arrested for selling prohibited drugs which is also a direct infraction covered under criminal law. This time he pleaded guilty to Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the third degree, a class C felony. He apparently failed to appear in court for sentencing. Hence, a bench warrant for his appearance was issued. Due to his prolonged absence, his warrant was served more than two (2) years later. Upon service of warrant, the court convicted the defendant and sentenced him to be imprisoned for three (3) to seven (7) years.

On his own, the defendant moved for resentencing which is an action, given the requirements of law, granted under the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA). Defendant’s motion was subsequently denied and the court held that the 2009 DLRA did not authorize the resentencing of Class C felony drug offenders.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Court Looks at Intent in Criminal Assault Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sometimes, the cases that reach the Supreme Court on appeal represent a question of law that is similar among several cases. When this happens, the cases are grouped into one with several cases included. One such composite case involved a defendant who was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was arrested for shooting a man with whom he had gotten into a disagreement. They had known each other for many years before the disagreement turned violent. The only witness to the altercation was the victim himself. The victim had originally told the police that he did not know who had shot him. It was not until later that he identified his acquaintance as the perpetrator of the assault. The defense attorney for the defendant attempted to have expert testimony presented in court on the inadequacies of eyewitness identifications. The trial court denied his request.

The judge instructed the jury that the defendant could only be convicted of the charge of first degree assault if he caused serious physical injury to the man by means of a deadly weapon with the intent to cause serious physical injury. They were charged that to convict him of second degree weapon possession, they had to prove that the defendant possessed the loaded gun, that he possessed it knowingly, that the gun was operable, and that he had the intent to use it with unlawful intent against the man who was shot. The jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder and second degree possession of a weapon. He was convicted of first degree assault. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defense attorney objected to the verdict in court because he maintains that the fact that the defendant was acquitted on the weapon possession count that he could not be convicted for the assault with that weapon.

The trial court rejected the argument of the defense because they claimed that it was not contradictory for the defendant to have possessed the weapon without an intent to use it illegally. He had possession of the weapon without intent to assault anyone earlier in the day before he decided to use it to shoot the victim. The Appellate court agreed on the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Published on: June 22, 2012

Court Hears Motion To Supress Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 25, 2003, the Associate Village Justice of the Supreme Court, issued a search warrant directed to “any police officer of the County of Nassau.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the search warrant found that there is probable and reasonable cause for the issuance of the warrant to make a search with the inspector and his agents, between 09/25/03 and 10/02/03 in the hours between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. of the entire premises in 335 Princeton Street, Westbury, NewYork. The warrant categorically states that the seizure of the evidence shall be limited to the taking of still photographs and videotape pictures of the inside and outside of the premises.

The Senior Building Inspector of the Village of Westbury believed that the subject premises has been used or is being used as a two (2) family dwelling and the cellar is being used as an illegal apartment dwelling in violation of sec. 79-2, sec. 83-6, sec. 112-7, sec. 184-4, sec. 248-6 A and sec. 248-283 of the code of the Village of Westbury and NewYork State Multiple Dwelling Law sec. 30 and sec. 34. A Supervisor in the Department of Public Works testified that the garbage generated from the home was 3 to 4 times the normal amount at every pick up.

Subject to the defendant’s motion to suppress, the parties stipulated to the receipt into evidence of the “return” on the warrant indicating what was seized during the search.

Published on: June 21, 2012

Court Decides if Confession of Minor is Admissible

by Stephen Bilkis

A peace officer (not a police officer) was walking along the corner of 14th Street and 31st Avenue at around 6:30 p.m. on July 19, 1963. He saw a 15 year old boy standing on that street corner. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said he saw another person approach the 15-year old boy and after briefly talking, the person who approached him put a dollar bill on a public mailbox. After that, the15-year old boy passed something from his hand to the man’s hand. The man then turned and left the 15-year old boy.

The peace officer then observed the 15-year old boy walk around the corner. He saw the 15-year old boy shuffling unsteadily until he went inside a grocery store. The peace officer followed him inside the grocery store and noted that the child looked dazed. His eyes were red and droopy like he was so sleepy. The peace officer then approached the boy and asked him what the matter was with him.

The boy answered that he had taken drugs. The peace officer then identified himself to the boy and asked him if he could frisk him. The boy acquiesced. The peace officer then frisked the boy and found hard objects in his right front pants pocket. The peace officer then asked the boy to remove the contents of his pockets.

Published on: June 19, 2012

Defendant Contends Burden of Proof was Not Met

by Stephen Bilkis

A girl was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, for which she was sentenced to a prison term of eight years to life. She was imprisoned and already served her three years term.

The girl contends that the evidence at her trial failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that she was the woman who sold an undercover officer 214 vials containing cocaine. However, New York Drug Crime Lawyer said there was ample evidence that the officer had sufficient opportunity during the sale to observe the girl closely enough to permit a reliable identification at the trial, and the jury was entitled to credit the identification. Further, a New York the girl also contends that the New York state failed to demonstrate that she sold two ounces or more of cocaine that was contested by the testimony of the chemist who testified for the New York state as to the procedure he employed in weighing the contents of the vials. It was for the jury to decide whether the expert had adequately analyzed and weighed the contents and whether his opinion was entitled to be credited.

The New York state cross-appealed, however, contending that the court illegally imposed a sentence which was less than the legal minimum of fifteen years to life. The girl, at age seventeen was properly convicted for selling drugs. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he had already served three years of the original sentence of eight years to life. She didn’t murder anyone. In fact, she has not ever been convicted of any other crime than the said drug crime.