Articles Posted in Drug Possesion

A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, the defendant, charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (Penal Law (PL) § 220.03), Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree (PL § 220.50[2]) and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (PL § 221.05) moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds alleging that the People failed to announce their readiness for trial within the applicable ninety day statutory period mandated by CPL 30.30(1)(b).

A Kings Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the People concede, in their Affirmation in Opposition, that their announcement of readiness for trial was not made until the ninety-first day after the filing of the accusatory instrument. They assert, nonetheless, that their announcement of readiness was timely for two reasons, namely: (1) that the defendant’s pre-conversion oral request for a copy of the search warrant underlying the defendant’s arrest, is an excludable pre-trial delay as provided in CPL 30.30[4][a] ; and (2), even if the Court would disallow the request for a copy of the search warrant as an excludable pre-trial delay, as the day on which the People would have been required to announce their readiness for trial fell on a Sunday, the General Construction Law permits a timely announcement of readiness on the following business day in the instant case, the ninety-first day which fell on a Monday.

A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, the defendant was arrested on the aforementioned charges on November 8, 1996. The misdemeanor complaint, in relevant part, reads as follows: Deponent is informed by P.O. Brooks that deponent entered the above premises pursuant to a search warrant issued by the Judge on 11/97/96 and observed the defendant standing in a bedroom with a quantity of crack/cocaine possession and a quantity of marijuana possession on top of a dresser in open view.

Continue reading

A Kings Drug Possession Lawyer said that, a Spanish-speaking student at Boys’ High School in Brooklyn reported that someone had taken his calendar-type Timex wristwatch. The Dean of the school transmitted this information to the uniformed school service officer who is the complainant herein. All that the complainant had to go by was the report that the perpetrator of the theft wore a corduroy coat with a fur collar. He did see a student (the defendant) wearing a coat of that description. Without saying why, he invited the student into the Dean’s office and asked him to show him his wristwatch. The student did so. It was not the stolen watch.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, the complainant testified that when the defendant’s coat was open he observed a slight bulge in a front pocket of his dungarees, with an inch or so of a brown envelope protruding from the top of the pocket. He asked the student to empty his pockets. This he did. There were three brown envelopes. Two of them contained what looked like–and turned out to be–marijuana. One was empty. There were also some pills and a pipe.

The complainant called in a police officer attached to the school, and the defendant was arrested for possession of dangerous drugs. He testified at this hearing that when the complainant stopped him he was wearing a coat that was unlike the one described by the complainant. He said that there were no envelopes showing at the top of his pocket. He charges that the seizure was illegal, and seeks suppression of the marijuana under CPL 710.20. In ruling on the motion, the court accepts the testimony of the security guard with respect to the defendant’s coat and the location of the brown envelope in the defendant’s pocket.

Continue reading

This is a Marijuana Possession case. Respondent is a public housing authority that provides and manages residential units such as the subject residence, the Breukelen Houses, located Brooklyn, New York. Petitioner was a tenant of apartment 3B (the apartment) at the Breukelen Houses. According to the Resident Lease Agreement, Petitioner was the sole lessee for the apartment and only authorized resident listed on her most recent affidavits of income.

A Kings County Criminal attorney said that in September 2005, Respondent charged petitioner with, among other things, non-desirability based on (a) her son’s unlawful possession of marijuana on Respondent’s property and (b) filing false income information with Respondent. The parties chose to settle the charges by signing a stipulation of probation in December 2006. Under terms of the Stipulation, petitioner agreed, inter alia, to subject her tenancy to a five-year probationary period commencing on 2007 and ending on 2012; to permanently exclude her son from residing in or visiting her at the apartment. If Petitioner failed to adhere to the conditions under the Stipulation, Respondent would be entitled to seek to terminate her tenancy for violation of probation.

Although Petitioner’s son was removed from the apartment, Respondent did not remove him from the Resident Lease Agreement, despite her request. In August 2006, petitioner was diagnosed with breast cancer. In March 2007, approximately three months after signing the Stipulation, Petitioner asked her son to return to the apartment and assist her with daily activities, such as moving around the apartment, shopping, and using the bathroom while she was undergoing chemotherapy treatment.

Continue reading

This case concerns the new and rapidly developing field of the law of “forfeiture”. In this civil action, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, to recover damages arising from an alleged fraudulent scheme to improperly obtain public funds. Simultaneous with the prosecution of criminal charges against the defendants, this civil action was commenced under CPLR article 13-A to declare the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crimes for which these defendants were indicted, and pursuant to Social Services Law § 145-b, to recover treble damages in the sum of $39,000,000 claimed to be resulting from the alleged fraud.

A Kings County Criminal Lawyer said that on appeal, the court is called upon to determine (1) whether the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ request for the imposition of provisional remedies against certain assets of the defendants, (2) whether the imposition of such relief effectively deprived those defendants subject to criminal charges of their constitutional right to obtain paid counsel of their own choosing by virtue of the freezing of their assets, and (3) whether the court erred in directing the criminal defendants to disclose certain financial information in violation of their constitutional right against self-incrimination.

For the reasons which follow, the court concludes that affirmance is warranted as to criminal defendants and non-criminal defendants. With regard to the other criminal defendant, the court remit to the Supreme Court for further consideration under the rules set forth herein.

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant was arrested for allegedly selling a quantity of phencyclidine (PCP) to another apprehended individual, and possessing additional quantities of PCP and ketamine in the stroller occupied by his child. He was charged by this indictment, inter alia, with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree (a Class B felony) and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (a Class A Misdemeanor).

Upon the defendant’s request for Judicial Diversion, the case was referred to the Brooklyn Treatment Court on 4 April 2011. The Judicial Diversion Program for Certain Felony Offenders (Criminal Procedure Law Article 216) grants authority to judges to determine which nonviolent defendants, whose criminal activity is the result of substance abuse or dependence, should have the opportunity to avoid a jail sentence by agreeing to complete court supervised treatment. The defendant is a predicate felon, having two prior drug felony convictions for which he served state prison time and was paroled within the past ten years. He also has two prior misdemeanor convictions for possession of controlled substances. He has no violent predicate felony convictions and no other pending felonies. Accordingly, it is undisputed that he is an “eligible defendant” for Judicial Diversion pursuant to CPL § 216.00(1).

The People consented to the defendant’s diversion into treatment only if he were willing to participate in the Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison (DTAP) program, which was developed by the Kings County District Attorney prior to the Judicial Diversion law to offer treatment to drug-addicted, repeat felony offenders in lieu of mandatory state prison terms. As per DTAP policy, all participants must initially be placed in long-term residential treatment facilities. The defendant declined the DTAP offer and requested the Court allow him to attend an outpatient treatment program through Judicial Diversion.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant moves to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL § 440.10(1)(h) on the grounds that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea due to his ineffective assistance of counsel. It is his contention that his attorney failed to properly advise him about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty as required by Padilla v Kentucky.

The court’s review of the moving papers, the People’s opposition, the Court file and the relevant case and statutory law, it finds that defendant’s motion should be denied for the reasons stated below.

The police observed on 11 August 2009 that the defendant was driving while talking on a cell phone in the vicinity of Remsen Avenue and Church lane, in Brooklyn. The officers pulled the defendant over. They observed that the defendant threw an object into the rear of the vehicle. The officers smelled Marijuana as they approached the defendant’s vehicles and recovered a clear Ziploc Bag of Marijuana in the backseat, which weighed in excess of eight ounces. The officers conducted a Department of Motor Vehicles computer check which revealed that the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the issue presented is whether or not a defendant may be granted an Adjournment in Contemplation under Criminal Procedure Law § 170.56, without the District Attorney’s consent, where the defendant has been granted a prior ACD under CPL § 170.55.

The court holds that the resolution of this issue requires an interpretation of such in CPL § 170.56 subd. 1(a), a construction heretofore unreported.

On 19 March 1979, the defendant was arrested for a criminal sale and possession of marijuana and resisting arrest. With the consent of the District Attorney’s office, all charges were ACD’ed pursuant to CPL § 170.55.

Continue reading

A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, petitioner an attorney admitted to the Bar in the State of New York and employed by the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Defense Division, since 1973, and a Roman Catholic priest, seeks permission of this court to continue to wear his clerical collar while representing defendant, as her attorney, upon the trial of an indictment charging defendant with Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Third Degree.

A Kings Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the District Attorney of the County of Kings has entered an objection to the wearing of clerical garb by the Reverend petitioner at trial the thrust of which is that a fair trial cannot be secured herein if he were to proceed to trial wearing clerical garb because of the likelihood that prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable, in the minds of the potential jurors would override their ability to be objective and impartial, and cites as authority for his posture the 1976 case decision, which upheld the prohibition by the trial judge in that case against petitioner’s appearance at trial wearing clerical garb while representing the defendant.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, the previous adjudication by the Court of Appeals of this state of the identical issue presented to this court arose through the vehicle of an Article 78 C.P.L.R. proceeding brought by petitioner to prohibit a Criminal Court judge from ordering him to remove his clerical collar prior to continuing as defense counsel in the trial of an action in Kings County Criminal Court. The issue reached the Court of Appeals pursuant to C.P.L.R., Section 5601(a) i & ii, (b), appealing an order and judgment of the Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissing the petition of petitioner-appellant.

Continue reading

A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, defendant is charged with Attempted Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (PL Sec. 110/220.03), and Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Fifth Degree, both Class B Misdemeanors, as well as Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (PL Sec. 221.05), a violation.of

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, at the hearing, the People offered the testimony two witnesses; two Police Officers. The Defense offered no testimony, but did place into evidence two photographs of the location where Defendant was arrested. The Police Officer testified that he is assigned to the 77 Precinct. He has made approximately 50 arrests for criminal drug possession of marijuana in his four year career with the New York City Police Department, and has received training in the identification of marijuana crime possession.

A Kings Drug Possession Lawyer said that, on June 25, 2011, he was working in uniform. While driving eastbound on St John’s Place, Brooklyn, New York, “a call came over the radio involving three male blacks smoking marijuana.” That call was received “approximately 30 minutes prior” to the arrest of Defendant. At approximately 7:20 PM, the said Police Officer arrived at the location to which he was allegedly directed by the call, 417 St. John’s Place, Brooklyn, NY. The Officer testified that “at this point, we proceeded to go over there. We observed two defendants in possession of a marijuana cigarette. There was a very strong smell at this point. We went over to stop the defendant. Once we made eye contact, he flicked the marijuana cigarette over his right shoulder.” The Officer then identified Defendant as the person who “flicked” the marijuana away. He testified that he recovered the marijuana from “the ground where the defendant threw it.”

Continue reading

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered March 7, 1984, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

On April 20, 1983, and again on April 25, 1983, an undercover investigator purchased from the defendant, for $350, a white powdery substance which he believed to be cocaine. Subsequent laboratory tests established that the substance purchased was in fact aspirin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was charged with one count of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of grand larceny in the third degree as to each of the transactions involved. At trial, the prosecution established that during each transaction, the defendant told the undercover agent that the substance he was selling was cocaine that the defendant took $350 each time in return for the substance, and that in each instance the substance transferred was actually aspirin.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the trial court reserved decision on the defendant’s motion, made at the close of the prosecution’s case, to dismiss those counts of the indictment charging him with grand larceny in the third degree, on the ground that the People failed to make out a prima facie case of the defendant’s guilt. The defendant then testified on his own behalf that he knew the substance was aspirin, but that he participated in the transaction in order to keep the confidential informant who arranged the sale off his back. The jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of grand larceny in the third degree and not guilty of two counts of attempted criminal sale of a controlled drug substance in the third degree. The trial court subsequently denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the grand larceny counts.

Continue reading