Drug Possesion

Published on: May 3, 2012

Court Discusses Discrimination of Domestic Violence Victims

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant woman was hired by the City Department of Correction and was subject to a two-year probation period. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she is the mother of two pre-teenage children and a victim of abuse by her crack and alcohol addict husband who also happens to have a criminal history. The woman moved out with her children and went to live with a relative. Things did not work out and she was ejected from the apartment. The woman requested a vacation time to find a home and was granted a leave through April 4, 2002.

On April 5, 2002, the still homeless woman asked the Department’s Health Management Division (HMD) for further time off to continue her search for a place to live. The Health Management Division put her on immediate sick leave due to stress. They also confiscated the woman’s identification and directed her to obtain a new one which reflected she was psychologically unfit to carry a firearm. At that same meeting, the Health Management Division demanded that the woman provide them with an address. When the woman told the Health Management Division that she was homeless and lacked an address, she was told she could not work at the Department without one. Faced with the threat even after she had explained her homelessness, she gave her husband’s address.

The Health Management Division conducted a visit to the woman at her husband’s address. When she was not found there, they required her to appear at the Health Management Division the following day to explain her unauthorized absence from home. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman was informed by her mother-in-law the woman appeared at the Health Management Division and at their request wrote a report explaining her circumstances and homelessness. Nonetheless, the Health Management Division made four subsequent visits to the husband’s residence expecting to find the petitioner there. The petitioner remained homeless, sleeping variously in her car, hotels, shelters or friends’ homes. The woman did return to her husband’s home twice, but both times he assaulted her and she had to seek police intervention and leave again.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Defendant Contends He was Denied Right to Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Norman L. Haymer. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant and appellant in the case, Norman L. Haymer, is appealing his original sentence. He states his right to counsel as provided by the sixth amendment was violated as a misdemeanor conviction that was uncounseled was included when determining his criminal history score.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Defendant Contends Evidence of Criminal History Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee of the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Douglas Dedeker. The case is being heard in the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Case History

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 1990, Douglas Dedeker, the appellant was convicted of helping a federal prisoner escape in the state of Colorado. After the appellant admitted to helping the individual and negotiated his plea of guilty, he was then interviewed by a probation officer who was in charge of preparing his presentencing report. During the meeting with the probation officer the defendant stated that he had not been found guilty of a crime since his initial release in July of 1988. However, the probation officer determined that he had been recently convicted on a shoplifting offense. For this offense he received a 30 day suspension sentence and a $300 fine. At this conviction Dedeker was not represented by a lawyer and received a fine and a suspended sentencing.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Felony Murder Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

At approximately 8:00 p.m., a man obtained a ride going to a shopping center. Ten minutes later, he entered a delicatessen, showed a gun and demanded money from the clerk. The clerk then turned over about $145 in cash and checks. After the robbery, the man left the shopping center and walked through the surrounding neighborhood. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the man eventually arrived at the county line bowling alley. Meanwhile, the robbery had been reported to the police department and an alert was transmitted over the police radio. Consequently, two officers arrived at the delicatessen just minutes after the man had left. A description of the robber was attained and reported over the police radio. A normal police procedure require that unassigned patrol cars proceed to the vicinity of the crime area and any nearby major intersections in an effort to seal off potential avenues of escape. As the man walked onto the parking lot of the bowling alley, he saw a police car turn and enter the lot. The man hid under a parked car. The lone officer in the car come out from his vehicle and walked over to man’s hiding place. The man got up from underneath the car with his gun concealed between his legs. The officer ordered the man to put his weapon on the car hood but the man turned and fired. The officer was mortally wounded and struggled to get back to his police car. The officer then attempted to use the radio to call for the assistance of brother officers and then collapsed on the seat. The man took the automobile of a bowling alley patron and fled. An off-duty police officer used the patrolman’s radio to broadcast a signal for help and the report of the shooting went over the police radio at 8:24 p.m. The eyewitnesses fixed the time of the argument at approximately 8:25 p.m. The bowling alley was located less than one-half mile from the robbed delicatessen.

The man was subsequently captured, identified by eyewitnesses and indicted. A motion to suppress his confession was denied, as was a motion to suppress evidence of a pretrial, police station lineup.

After a jury proceeding, the man was convicted of manslaughter, felony murder, robbery and grand larceny. The appellate division generally affirmed the judgment of conviction, without opinion. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the principal issue on that appeal is whether the jury was properly permitted to conclude that the shooting of the patrolman occurred in the immediate flight from the delicatessen robbery.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Indeterminate Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, prior to January 13, 2005, it was common for people convicted of Class B felony drug crimes to be incarcerated with indeterminate sentences. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trend at the time was to be tough on drug offenders by putting them in prison with no expectation of a final release date. In January of 2005, new trends and research into the problems presented by indeterminate sentences, caused New York lawmakers to rethink their policy. Class B felony drug crime offenders stopped getting indeterminate sentences. Since, the prisons were overrun with Class B felony drug crime offenders who had indeterminate sentences, CPL 440.46 was created to alleviate the problem. It states that any person who has been convicted of a Class B felony drug crime under article 220 of the Penal Law that was committed before January 13, 2005 might be eligible for resentencing under the new sentencing guidelines that did not include indeterminate sentences. They must have a maximum of more than three years to be eligible. The intent originally was to reduce the number of drug offenders on the streets. The problem with indeterminate sentences is that offenders behave worse when they do not have the hope of a definite end. The large number of drug offenders that were incarcerated was putting a strain on the system and taking space that was needed to house violent offenders. Sometimes, political notions of how to combat crime cause more problems than they solve. Indeterminate sentencing was one of those notions. The sentences were so severe that they were out of sync with the rest of the sentencing guidelines for other offences. Often, drug offenders received harsher sentences than violent offenders. There were other problems with the idea of indeterminate sentences that must be addressed by the New York legal system. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said one way is to go back through all of the cases where offenders are facing more than three years of an indeterminate sentence, and allow them to apply for resentencing under the new guidelines. In most cases, approval for resentencing means release into a drug treatment program and probation. There are exceptions to these resentencing guidelines. If a person was convicted in the ten years preceding this conviction with any violent felony offense described in section 70.02 of the penal law or any offense for which a merit time allowance is not available, then they are not eligible for resentencing under the new guidelines.

This ten-year period is figured from the date of the person’s resentencing motion and not from the date that he committed the present drug crime. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in one case, a man applied for resentencing under the new guidelines in October 2009. He had been convicted in March of 1984 for manslaughter in the first degree. Manslaughter in the first degree is a class B violent felony, which would otherwise make him ineligible for resentencing. He was also convicted in July of 1995 with manslaughter in the second degree which is an offense in which merit time allowance is not allowed. However, because both of these convictions occurred prior to the ten-year period from 2009, they do not disqualify him from resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. Under the ten-year look back policy, this offender’s history before 1999 cannot be considered in order to disqualify him from obtaining resentencing to remove his indeterminate sentence. Additionally, he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence that would last more than three years which does qualify him for resentencing under the new guidelines. This matter was remitted back to Queens County Supreme Court for new proceedings and a new determination of the motion. This means that the inmate will qualify for resentencing that will put his sentence in line with the sentences that drug crime offenders are presently getting.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said there are mixed arguments about resentencing drug offenders, but there is simply not enough room in the prisons to house everyone who has been convicted of a drug offense. It is important that the people who have been arrested for drug offenses, and given indeterminate sentences, contact a Queens Drug Lawyer. A Queens Criminal Lawyer can represent your interests and help you regain your freedom.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction in Shoplifting and Drug Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant of this case is the State of Florida. The state of Florida is being represented by the attorney general, Robert L. Shevin, and the assistant attorney general, Richard W. Prospect. The appellee in the case is Gregory Dean Bradley. He is being represented by public defender, Michael J. Minerva, and assistant public defender, Janice G. Scott.

The case is being heard in the first district of the District Court of Appeal in the state of Florida. The judge overseeing the case is Boyer.

Appeal

Published on: April 30, 2012

Defendant Claims Unlawful Arrest for Shoplifting

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellant of the case is Sharon McNulty. The defendants and appellees in the case are J.C. Penney #2168, J.C. Penney Corporation, J.C. Penney Company, Eric Green, and John Doe Defendants. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

Sharon McNulty, the appellant is challenging the original grant of a summary judgment made by the district court. McNulty was arrested at a J.C. Penney store located in Ridgeland, Mississippi after she had been accused of shoplifting on the 25th of March in 2005.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Defendant Brings Motion to Supress Idenification Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal of a man from his judgment in the Supreme Court convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degree, upon a jury verdict. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appeal brings up for review the denial of the accused man’s motion which was to suppress identification testimony and upon an order the court that reversed the above mentioned decision.

Contrary to the accused man’s contention, the pretrial lineup identification was not improperly suggestive. The photographs taken of the lineup reflect that the slight differences in skin tone between the man and the fillers were not so apparent as to orient the viewer toward the man as the offender of the crimes charged. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, the skin tone is only one of the factors to be considered in deciding reasonable similarity and differences in skin tone alone will not render a lineup improperly suggestive. A the court does not find that the presence of a small tattoo on the side of the man’s face rendered the lineup improperly suggestive.

The court found that improper remarks by the prosecutor during summation deprived the man of a fair trial. The prosecutor improperly vouched for a witness and implied that the witness faced retribution from the man when he stated that the witness testified not knowing what the consequence would be for herself and her family. A said that based on records, a prosecutor may not strengthen the credibility of a witness by making himself or herself unsworn witness and supporting his case by his own veracity and position.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Court Discusses Plain View Doctrine

by Stephen Bilkis

Computers are playing an ever increasing role in crime and criminal activity. In some cases, case law is still in a state of flux in determining how certain searches are affected by this technology. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question of novel issues in court are more common because of this. In one such case, the question was raised of whether a warrant authorizing a search of text files that are on a computer for documentary evidence pertaining to one particular crime, authorizes a search of image files on the same computer that contain evidence of a different crime. In cases like this, the question of law relates to the plain view doctrine.

The plain view doctrine states that anything that an officer can see in plain view while he or she is legally in a location, can be seized without a warrant. The suspect can then be charged with whatever crime the item suggests they are involved in. There are many cases that have established the case law referring to the plain view doctrine. Recently, the plain view doctrine has taken on an entirely different arena. The plain view doctrine can now be applied to computer files that are opened pursuant to a search of the computer. In other words, in the old days, the plain view doctrine applied to anything that an officer could see that was physically in plain view. For instance, a New York Criminal Lawyer said if the officer was inside a house relative to a domestic violence call, and observed a marijuana plant growing in the room, he could seize it and charge the person with possession of marijuana. The reason that he could seize it without a warrant is that he was inside the house legally handling a call for service and observed the plant in plain view. Now, most of us do not think about the files in a computer being in plain view, but if you think about them in the following fashion, it can be understood.

If an officer is searching a file cabinet located in a home for child pornography, under a search warrant that entitles him to look for evidence of the crime of child pornography, he is looking through the file cabinet legally. If he then sees a file that references drug crime, he can seize that file and make the appropriate charges, because he was legally in the file cabinet under the search warrant when he observed the additional file in plain view.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Considers Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Allegation

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff and defendant are brothers. The parties have been estranged since an event which occurred on Mother’s Day in 2003 at a family gathering. There have been numerous Family Court matters involving this family.

The allegations:

For the First Cause of Action – A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant has falsely accused plaintiff of a serious crime, namely filing a false police report, a criminal violation of New York State Penal Law. That accusation by defendant was a false and defamatory statement of and concerning plaintiff; specifically that she had filed a false criminal complaint against him for threatening her by brandishing a gun. Defendant made this false accusation to third parties, including but not necessarily limited to, family members.