Queens

Published on: January 26, 2013

Court Discusses Imposing Tax on Possession of Illegal Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

The question before the court in this case is whether imposing a tax on the possession of illegal drugs after the state has imposed a criminal penalty for the same conduct is in violation of the constitutional prohibition of successive punishments for the same crime.

Law Review

Montana’s Dangerous Drug Tax Act went into effect on the first of October, 1987. The Act imposes a tax on both the possession and the storage of illegal drugs. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the Act specifically states that the tax will be collected only after the state and federal fines or forfeitures have been satisfied. The imposed tax is either 10% of the market value of the drugs or specified amount depending on the drug. For example, the charge for marijuana is $100 per ounce and the charge for hashish is $250 per ounce. The charge is whatever is greater.

Published on: January 25, 2013

Plaintiff Contends Gross Negligence by Newspaper Reporter

by Stephen Bilkis

The case is about a libel suit filed by the Turkish national against the publisher, together with its managing director and other investigative reporters, for the republication into a book pertaining to several newspaper articles regarding worldwide narcotic trade covering several continents. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the plaintiff claimed that such articles were allegedly false and defamatory where he was named as a specialist drug criminal smuggler in his country. He further averred that the printed allegations against him were untrue, which caused damaged to his reputation as a legitimate businessman and he was gravely injured by the wrongful accusations written about him.

In 1973, a series of newspaper articles about the international drug crime of heroin possession and smuggling trade were published that merited public recognition and a prize from a recognized award-giving body. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the newspaper articles were then converted into a book through the efforts of the defendant publishing company.

The action filed against the newspaper company by the plaintiff was dismissed by the court because the cause of action had already prescribed. No appeal was made by the Turkish national. But the libel case filed by the plaintiff against the publishing firm was not dismissed since it was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Published on: January 23, 2013

Defendant Claims Insufficiency of Evidence in Heroin Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was charged with a drug crime, particularly, for possession of heroin and filed an appeal before the court for his conviction. Appellant averred that there was insufficiency of evidence, admissibility of the testimony pertaining to other drugs than those of which he was indicted and trial judge’s charge to the jury.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the facts of the case were, the postal inspectors found a package from Thailand containing 13 grams of heroin addressed to the resident of the accused. The postal authorities managed an organized delivery of the package to the defendant’s residence. Upon receipt of the package, the officials waited for about twenty to thirty minutes before they entered the apartment of the appellant equipped with a valid search warrant. They saw the drug felon inside his bedroom with 6.5 grams of heroin on top of a table near him. The police detectives made further search within the premises and found thirty packets of heroin, also known as “dime bags,” and butts of marijuana cigarettes inside a drawer of a dresser at another bedroom at the opposite side of the defendant’s room.

The theory of the government was that the accused intended to distribute the heroin upon discovery of the “dime bags” in his apartment. It was a common practice that heroin found in such kind of packages are fitting for the drug crime of street distribution, which is an indication that the appellant was a drug dealer of heroin and the purpose of the delivery of the heroin package was for its distribution. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the accused had a different theory, which he presented before the jury. He contended that the “dime bags” did not contain any heroin from the package and that the entire 13-gram heroin he received were those that was found on top of the table in front of him that was found by the police officers. He alleged that when he heard the law enforcers coming inside his room, he had thrown some of the heroin into a corner of a closet.

Published on: January 14, 2013

Court Discusses Penal Law 70.08 Regarding Violent Felonies

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree, a class B violent felony under Penal Law § 70.02 (1) (a). At his sentence, the People filed information alleging that defendant was a persistent VFO having been convicted of two previous violent felonies. The People alleged that on January 7, 1985, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in Nassau County and sentenced to a term of incarceration of 2Â½ years. The People also alleged that on July 18, 1986, defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree in Nassau County and sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration with a minimum of 4 years and a maximum of 8 years. The People further asserted that the following time periods during which defendant was incarcerated were tolled from the 10-year limitation: January 18, 1985 to April 5, 1990, and December 14, 1991 to June 9, 1994.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that, the court adjudicated defendant a persistent VFO and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 24 years to life, in accordance with the statutory guidelines set forth in Penal Law § 70.08.

Defendant now moves to set aside his sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20 on the grounds that he was unlawfully adjudicated a persistent VFO. In his motion, defendant claims that he was unlawfully adjudicated a persistent VFO.A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant argues that his 1985 conviction cannot serve as a predicate in conjunction with his 1986 conviction because the sentence on his earlier case was not imposed until after the commission of the felony on the latter case. To support his claim, defendant attached to his motion the commitment orders submitted by the Clerk of Nassau County to the State Department of Correctional Services on both the 1985 and 1986 convictions. Indeed, the orders confirm that defendant had been sentenced on his 1985 gun crime conviction on January 7, 1985-15 months after September 8, 1983, the date he committed the gun crime which led to his subsequent burglary conviction in 1986. Furthermore, the second violent felony offender statement submitted by the Nassau County District Attorney’s office upon defendant’s sentencing in 1986 establishes that the People did not rely upon defendant’s 1985 conviction to enhance his punishment. Instead, in 1986, the People relied upon defendant’s 1981 conviction of robbery in the first degree in Bronx County to establish that defendant was a second VFO.

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 25, 2012

Court Determines an Error in Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellant was tried before the court without a jury and found guilty of the crime of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, to-wit, grand larceny, and of the crime of grand larceny. Separate sentences were imposed thereon for imprisonment for a period of three years, with provision for the sentences to be served concurrently.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said an appeal therefrom, it was contended that the court erred in denying appellant’s motion for acquittal on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, and further that it was error to impose more than one sentence.

Upon review of the case, the court found no reversible error therein.

Published on: November 24, 2012

Court Discusses Jury’s Pardon Power

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent was charged with and convicted of robbery of property having a value of less than $100. At trial, he requested a jury instruction on petit larceny. The court refused the request, instead instructing the jury on attempted robbery. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that on appeal, the fourth district held that the failure to instruct on petit larceny was prejudicial error and reversed the trial court. On rehearing, the district court adhered to its original opinion and certified the question which the Court now considers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue in this case is, if a defendant is convicted by overwhelming evidence of a greater offense, and the jury is instructed on an attempt to commit that offense, is the failure to instruct on the next lesser included offense, which carries a penalty less than the attempt, harmless error under the 1978 case?

The Court said that in the 1972 case, the petitioners, who had been convicted of rape, raised as error on appeal the trial judge’s refusal to give instructions as to certain lesser included offenses to the crime of rape. We refused to disturb the trial court’s decision and held that although it was error to refuse to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault and battery, it was, nevertheless, harmless error. In the said case we noted that the jury had been instructed on assault with intent to commit rape, which is “one step” below the offense of rape. The offense of assault and battery is “two steps” removed from the crime of which petitioners were convicted. Since the jury had been given the opportunity to reduce the rape charge one step, but had convicted petitioners of the more serious charge, we found that it was harmless error to fail to give the requested charge on the offense two steps removed.

Published on: October 30, 2012

Court Determines Defendant is Entitled to Habeaus Corpus Relief

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner was a Florida prisoner on death row, having been convicted of first degree murder. The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus setting aside his conviction and sentence. The United States Court of Appeals reversed the decision of district court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issues involved are whether or not the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State violated the Brady rule.

An illicit love affair ensued between a man, a real estate broker with ties to Boston’s criminal underworld, and a woman, who was married to a wealthy citrus grower. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the man and the woman conspired to kill the wealthy husband by hiring petitioner as an assassin to murder husband. Unfortunately, the murder did not signal the beginning of a blissful life on the estate for the lovers. The man allegedly wanted more money and continue to harass the woman and her child. Terrified, the woman went to the authorities and implicated the man as the person behind her husband’s murder.

During the trial, the man discredited the woman as prosecution’s star witness. Trial proceedings were tainted with evidentiary irregularity leading to the unavailability of key witnesses. The man was discharged from prosecution in the crime of murder. The court then granted the petition to destroy certain physical evidence held for man’s prosecution.

Published on: October 29, 2012

Plaintiffs Bring Suit for Harrassment and Blackmail

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Plaintiffs brought suit against the Defendants for: harassment, blackmailing and conspiring to boycott their classes and attempting to have them terminated from East Texas Police Academy (“ETPA”) in retaliation for their testimony in a case against another police officer involved in a shooting incident. A New York Criminal Lawyer said plaintiffs also claimed violations of: their rights to testify freely under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); their right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendment; their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs were instructors at the ETPA, in Kilgore, Texas, which provides basic and advanced training for law enforcement officers in the greater East Texas area. Defendants are the police chiefs or sheriffs from seven cities and counties within the greater East Texas area and who possess final authority over the training of the officers employed by their respective agencies.

Before the fall of 1998, Defendants enrolled their officers in ETPA courses on a regular basis, including courses taught by the Plaintiffs. The defendants were not contractually bound to continue using either the ETPA’s services or the services of Plaintiffs in particular. In August 1998, Plaintiffs voluntarily testified as expert witnesses against a police sniper from Kerrville, Texas who fatally shot a teenager. The said police officer was not trained at the ETPA nor belongs to the police agencies headed by the Defendants. In the said case, Plaintiffs testified that the Kerrville police officer used excessive force and that the Kerrville police department failed to implement the proper policies necessary to direct the conduct of officers acting as snipers.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the said testimony irked the Defendants and threatened the ETPA that they will all stop engaging their services for officer training. One of them said that Plaintiffs testimony “is in direct conflict with the basic fundamentals and expectations that we have come to enjoy from Academy instructors.” It created “conflicts of interest” and violated principles of “cooperative responsibility.” They believe that an unacceptable conflict of interest exists whenever a police instructor testifies against a police officer, regardless of location and regardless of whether the instructor had trained the officer. Such a conflict does not exist when an instructor testifies for police officers.

Published on: October 28, 2012

drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was convicted after a jury trial of murder. Upon the conviction, a New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the woman was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of seventeen years. She was also convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to an indeterminate term five years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of two and one-half years to run concurrent with the life sentence.

The woman moves personally without a notice of motion or sworn affidavit, for re-sentencing to a determinate term of imprisonment. She did, however, verify that she served the District Attorney. Notwithstanding such service, the District Attorney failed to file any opposition. Consequently, on February 4, 2010, the court deemed the woman’s motion submitted on default.

Irrespective of the District Attorney’s default, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman fails to provide any legal basis upon which the court may grant the relief requested. While she refers to the recently passed laws that may allow people who are serving life sentences to be considered to be re-sentenced to an alternate determinate sentence, she fails to identify any legal basis in support of her application. Indeed, it appears to the court that her claim is predicated on having been denied parole, stating that he has been denied parole release based solely for her crime, which will never change. It is served above and beyond the minimum term on both indictments and the maximum on one that she is not asking for a reduction that will minimize the responsibility to accept the punishment of her crime, however, the past cannot be change and to be denied release solely for her offense, which will not change is illogical and excessive. The woman believes that she is eligible to file an application under the standards of law and respectfully that she be re-sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment.