Defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover police officer, a drug crime. On the day after the sale, defendant was arrested.
A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant was charged with the crime of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree.
Defendant pled guilty to the sole count of the indictment and in exchange was promised an indeterminate sentence of five to ten years of incarceration.
On January 10, 1990, two men who were drug dealers met and decided that they were going to have to rob a convenience store owner from India because he owed them $5,000 for a previous drug deal. A New York DWI Lawyer said he had not paid the men and they wanted to make an example of his as well as recoup some of their losses. They went to the store that evening and he was not there. The following day, the two men met with two other men and arranged to get a van and meet at the convenience store that night. One man drove the van and dropped the others off at the store.
There was one other employee in the store that night. He was also from India. He saw the discussions that were taking place between the storeowner and the two men who were at the store, but claims that he did not take any notice. He had gone to work at the convenience store for less pay than he had been making as a cab driver before taking the job. There was some speculation as to his involvement in the drug business that was going through the convenience store. The store was to close at around three in the morning. At closing time, the employee counted out the store’s receipts for the day and gave them to the owner. It was about $2,500 in cash. The two men accompanied the storeowner and the employee out of the store. In front of the store, the owner and employee pulled down the security shutters and locked the building.
It was then that the employee said that the men pointed a gun at the storeowner and the other man put a gun into the employee’s side and told them to get into the storeowner’s car. They were taken to an isolated area where the man in the front passenger seat shot the storeowner in the head. The van pulled up and the men got out of the car with the employee. They left the storeowner slumped over his steering wheel presumably dead. The employee was taken back to his home and told that if he told anyone about what he had seen, he would be killed. The other men left the van abandoned and got into a different vehicle and everyone was dropped off at their homes.
A police officer was on patrol one evening when he received a call regarding a disturbance at a certain street. He was advised that an occupant of a tan Honda Accord, with the license plate no., was holding a gun out of the window; a possible gun crime. However, no description was given regarding the occupants of the vehicle.
A New York DWI Lawyer said he aforesaid street was a known gang and drug location where a gang known as the “MS-13” displayed their “tags”, symbols on buildings at that location. The police officer on patrol had previously responded to the same street and was familiar with the area.
The police officer responded to the call and upon arrival at the street he observed four to five individuals next to the tan Honda Accord with the same license plate as reported, some of whom were wearing the blue bandana gang colors of “MS-13”, who were believed to be the occupants of the vehicle.
The United States of America is the plaintiff and the appellee in this case. The defendants and appellants of the case are John Franklin Roper and Dr. Luther Lewis Ashley, Jr. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
Criminal Case and Appeal
A New York DWI Lawyer said this is a criminal appeal as the defendants were convicted of violations of the Hobbs Act on four counts. The indictment charged Loren Ralph Fossum, Ashley, and Roper of extorting over three hundred thousand dollars from Eastern Airlines.
The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Felicia Monique Dunn. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
Appeal
A New York DWI Lawyer said Felicia Monique Dunn is appealing her sentence for possessing cocaine with the objective to distribute. She also was charged with aiding and abetting cocaine. Her reason for appeal is that there were two shoplifting convictions that were used to add to her sentence. Under guidelines for sentencing she states that a lower enhancement is necessary as both the offenses occurred at different stores located in the same mall during roughly the same time frame and were heard in the same court with the same pleas and sentences that were concurrent.
This is a case of Ewing versus California. The case is being heard in the Second Appellate district in the Court of Appeals in California. The original case was argued on the fifth of November in 2002 and the decision was made on the fifth of March in 2003.
Case Discussion and History
A New York DWI Lawyer said California is one of the states that have initiated a three strikes rule. Under this law it is stated that if an person is convicted of a felony and has been convicted of two vicious or serious felonies in the past, an indeterminate life term in prison will be given. The defendant will be eligible for parole on a date that is relevant to the minimum term of the case. In this particular case the parole date is set at 25 years.
A married couple who are both hearing impaired had two children born on May 1995 and May 1992. The younger child has spina bifida. The two children were removed from the home and placed in foster care on June 20, 1996 by the Family Court after it found proof of medical neglect and domestic violence.
A New York DWI Lawyer said the husband assaulted the wife with a knife and this landed him in jail. When questioned by the family court if he assaulted his wife with a knife, he denied it. He claims that he and his wife argued and while they were arguing, he was holding a knife. He denied that he hurt her. While he was in jail, he did not see, call or visit his child. After he was released from jail, he still failed to visit, call or write his child. He failed to financially support his child.
The mother underwent therapy and counseling for depression and also for substance abuse. She admitted to her case worker that she had been using marijuana. When the case worker told her to get herself tested for substance abuse and also to submit herself for psychological evaluation, she refused.
The right to bear arms in this country is a vital part of our country’s history. In recent years, the right to bear arms, has been more limited than at any other time in the history of this nation. In order to bear arms in New York, a person must apply for a license. The laws that control the eligibility requirements for obtaining a pistol license are unusually broad. The pistol-licensing officer has tremendous discretion when it comes to approving permits. Penal Law § 400.009(1) states that the pistol licensing officer has the right to deny any application for any good cause.
A New York DWI Lawyer said there have been several appeals based on decisions of pistol licensing officers to deny the right to bear arms in the state of New York. No one wants to have people with mental problems, or serious criminals running around with firearms. So where is the line drawn? Florida’s stand your ground law is being criticized in the news because of the recent shooting involving a neighborhood watch representative who was armed when he encountered a teen in a hoody this year. The teen did not survive the encounter. There were no witnesses to the shooting. The neighborhood watch representative stated that the teen attacked him and he was in fear that he was going to sustain serious bodily harm. Following the police investigation and community outcry, the neighborhood watch representative was arrested. If the neighborhood watch representative had not been armed, the situation would have been different. Whether that means that the neighborhood watch representative would have been injured by the teen is unknown. There have been many situations where people who have exercised their right to bear arms, have had to justify their choices. Ultimately, if a person has to defend their lives in the face of a threat, they are glad to have a gun with them.
In one case from New York in 2011, a man appealed the judgment of the pistol licensing officer who denied his request for a pistol license. He stated that there was no reason for the license to be denied. A New York DWI Lawyer said the pistol licensing officer determined that the man had been arrested three times for DWI and had one conviction for DUI. One of the arrests for DUI occurred while his pistol license was in review. In this case, it is fairly obvious that this man did not exercise good common sense when it came to his actions. Does this mean that he should not be allowed to carry a pistol? It would probably be a bad idea.
When a person gets behind the wheel of a car, they are getting behind the wheel of a machine that is heavy enough to kill another person. It is a weapon when used offensively against another. When a person has already proven that they are incapable of using good enough judgment to continue to possess a driver’s license, is found to be driving a vehicle while under the influence, the crime is especially heinous.
However, justice has many steps for a reason. A New York DWI Lawyer said our justice system is an adversarial justice system. The adversarial nature is in place to prevent the mistakes that human beings make. The appeal process is not in place to provide a sounding board for every criminal. A New York DWI Lawyer said there must be a constitutional ground that makes the case worth reviewing once it is past the Superior court level. In one case that involved a habitual violator with a revoked license, a police officer pulled up behind a car that was parked on the side of the road. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed that the subject had a strong odor of alcohol about his person and that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. His speech was slurred and the subject was unsteady on his feet.
Field Sobriety Tests are notoriously questionable. A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said that they are designed for failure, so it is rarely a surprise when a person who has been asked to participate in these tests, does not pass them. In this case, the subject failed two of the three tests, but it is not clear which ones or what the criteria was for the officer to consider the test to be a failure. The defendant maintained that his arrest was illegal because the officer did not see him driving and could not make a determination that his driving was impaired.
Defendant is charged with assault in the third degree and resisting arrest, in violation of Penal Laws.
Defendant moves for an order dismissing the two information, or, in the alternative, granting a hearing, pursuant to People v. Huntley (a Huntley hearing), regarding statements disclosed by the People in a notice that has been served.
The People oppose the motions.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog