New York City

Published on: December 2, 2012

Defendant Contends Court Lacks Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, appellant was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of West Palm Beach County for grand larceny. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, he was arraigned on the information and entered a plea of not guilty. At the beginning of the trial, which was held before the trial judge without a jury, the county solicitor made the announcement in open court and said that: ‘In this case, the State is going to attempt to prove petit larceny and not grand larceny.’ A West Palm Beach Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, after this announcement the county solicitor submitted evidence to prove that the charge contained in the information constituted petit larceny; and the trial court found the defendant to be guilty of petit larceny. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction was rendered and the defendant, as a result, appealed to this Court.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that, the Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal for a misdemeanor conviction. A West Palm Beach Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the defendant contends that inasmuch as the information upon which the defendant was arraigned charged a felony this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

The issue in this case is whether the appeal of the appellant should be dismissed on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal for a misdemeanor conviction.

Published on: October 19, 2012

Court Discusses Due Process Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, petitioner fired several shots into the home of an African-American family and made a statement which he later retracted that he did not want the family in his neighborhood because of their race. A New Jersey Criminal Lawyer said that, he was charged under New Jersey law with, second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, (possession of a weapon), which carries a prison term of 5 to 10 years. The count did not refer to the State’s hate crime statute, which provides for an enhanced sentence if a trial judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the crime with a purpose to intimidate a person or group because of, inter alia, race. After petitioner pleaded guilty, a New York Criminal Lawyer said that the prosecutor filed a motion to enhance the sentence. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the shooting was racially motivated and sentenced petitioner to a 12-year term on the firearms count. In upholding the sentence, the appeals court rejected petitioner’s claim that the Due Process Clause requires that a bias finding be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The State Supreme Court affirmed.

The issue in this case is whether petitioner has been denied of his right to due process.

The Court held that the Constitution requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Published on: October 18, 2012

Defendant Says Court Failed to Instruct the Jury Properly

by Stephen Bilkis

Appellant was charged with and convicted of robbery of property having a value of less than $100. He raises four points on appeal, one of which requires discussion and reversal. A Palm Beach Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, although the evidence presented at trial would have supported a conviction of petit larceny, appellant’s request for a jury instruction on that crime was denied. In a 1979 case, the Court held that larceny is necessarily included in the crime of robbery and that it is legally impossible to prove robbery without proving larceny.

The issue in this case is whether appellant is entitled to the reversal of his conviction for robbery.

The Court held that the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510 expressly requires the trial court to charge the jury on any offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. Appellee concedes it was an error not to do so, but argues the error was harmless. The Supreme Court held that it is reversible error per se not to instruct on the next immediate lesser included offense, while it may be harmless error not to instruct on an offense two steps removed from the offense charged. In reference to the charge sub judice “the determination of whether the refusal to instruct on larceny was reversible error would depend upon an application of the case to the facts of what transpired in the trial court.” Here, a New York Criminal Lawyer said there was neither charge nor evidence of property having a value of $100 or more. Consequently, petit larceny was the next immediate lesser included offense and the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct on said crime.

Published on: October 15, 2012

Defendants Claim Insufficient Evidence in Theft Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner was adjudicated delinquent on the charge of petit larceny of items valued at $100 or more but less than $300, a first degree misdemeanor. Although the State presented evidence about the items taken, it offered no evidence of their value. The petitioner failed to object, however, or to move for judgment of acquittal on this ground. The petitioner raised the claim for the first time on appeal, asserting fundamental error. The Fourth District held that the issue must be preserved for appeal. Similarly, in the conflict case, another petitioner argued for the first time on appeal that a delinquent adjudication for first-degree petit theft must be reduced to second-degree because the State failed to prove the value of the stolen items. The Second District Court of Appeal, relying on a similar case decision receded from on other grounds concluded that the failure of proof on the essential element of value was fundamental error and reversed.

In a similar case, the opponents were convicted of two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. As did the petitioner, on appeal they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction on the element of the value of the property stolen. The opponents contended that the State thus failed to present a legitimate case and that it constituted fundamental error. A New York Criminal Lawyer said citing a line of prior decisions, the court rejected the argument and held that unless the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict in a criminal case is first presented to the trial court by way of an appropriate motion, the issue is not reviewable on direct appeal from an adverse judgment. Because the issue was not preserved, the court held that it was not open to appellate review.

After resolving the conflict issue presented, the Court turned to the petitioners’ contention that there was fundamental error committed as to them in that they were convicted of grand larceny when the State’s evidence did not support a conviction of grand larceny. Again, the petitioners claimed that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the value of the items stolen. The court reviewed the record and held that the evidence was insufficient to support a grand larceny conviction. The court reversed for entry of a petit larceny conviction.

Published on: October 14, 2012

Court Discusses Petit Larceny Case

by Stephen Bilkis

An accused man filed for an appeal from a final judgment of his conviction and a sentence of three years probation entered by a jury decision finding him guilty of two counts of grand larceny. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the district court however reviewed the record and reveals that the man’s opponent did not show, as set forth in the information, that the property specifically a hubcaps at the time it was stolen had a fair market value of one hundred dollars or more.

The man was charged with three counts of grand larceny and the trial court granted a directed decision of acquittal as to one of the counts. The remaining two counts charged the accused man with unlawfully and feloniously stealing of hubcaps (petit larceny), valued at $100 or more, from the lawful custody of a man and a woman. With a three day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the two counts. After that, the trial court entered a final decision of conviction and sentence the man of three years probation from which he brought the appeal.

The man contends that his opponent failed to prove by competent substantial evidence, as to one of the counts, the ownership of the stolen property and, as to both of the counts, that the fair market value of the property was $100 or more at the time it was stolen.

Published on: October 12, 2012

Court Discusses Constitutionality of Prison Reforms Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The case refers to an appeal submitted by the Texas prison officials for the denial of their motions to terminate prospective relief by the district court.

The relevant facts and procedural background of the case has transpired for almost 30 years. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that several criminal inmates filed claims against the director of the Texas correction facilities for malpractice and a violation of former’s civil and constitutional rights in the conduct of detention conditions and practices.

In 1992, judgment was rendered by the court. Several years have passed, the defendants filed a motion to vacate said judgment and a month later a law was enacted by Congress in relation to prison litigation reforms. Under the new law, “federal courts may grant or terminate prospective relief in prison litigation subject to certain standards and they may also refuse to terminate prospective relief only upon specific findings regarding the continued necessity of such relief.” This was the basis used by the corrections board of Texas, who seek to terminate the prospective relief of the judgment against their favor.

Published on: October 5, 2012

Court Discusses Blockburger Test for Theft Case

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 Criminal 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: October 1, 2012

Court Discusses the 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 Criminal 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 larceny, 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: August 17, 2012

Young Girl Charged with Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

On 2009, a seventeen years old girl was arrested and subsequently accused of felony charges in two separately docketed felony complaints. She was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree when an undercover police officer alleged in the complaint that she along several others, were selling narcotics from a first-floor apartment window of a building. The officer specifically alleged that the girl, who he saw at the window inside the apartment, handed three bags of crack cocaine (cocaine possession) to his colleague, who was standing on the sidewalk outside the window. The man then immediately delivered the crack cocaine in her possession to the officer.

In a separate complaint, the girl was also charged with crack possession. Another police officer alleged that, at about the same time the sale occurred, he entered the aforementioned apartment and found the girl and a twenty-three-year-old man, inside. The officer further stated that he recovered fifteen clear bags containing crack cocaine sitting in plain view on the dining room table. While the police officers were in the apartment, the girl’s brother entered and asked what is going on. The brother was also arrested, along with the girl and the man.

The girl appeared for her arraignment and the court assigned the public defender organization to represent her. A very experienced staff attorney from the organization was designated to be the girl’s attorney. The attorney met with the girl to discuss the case prior to her court appearance. He went over the factual allegations in the accusatory instruments with her, and she then told the attorney her version of the events. When the girl appeared, she entered pleas of not guilty to all charges. The cases were deferred for grand jury action.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Confirms Warrant for Arrest Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against Daphne Barber, Timothy Barber and Eric Jean as the defendants. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County Part II. The defendants in the case, Timothy Barber, Daphne Barber, and Eric Jean have been charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant Daphne Barber has laso been charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.

Defendants Argument

The Barbers have motioned both orally and in writing for two search warrants that were issued on the 24th of June and the 2nd of July in 1981 to be removed and for all the evidence including the cocaine (cocaine possession) that was seized to be suppressed. Defendant Eric Jean did not move with respect to the indictments against him and is not a part of this hearing.