Petite Larceny

Published on: July 7, 2012

Defendant Requests Case be Moved to Prevent Prejudice

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are the appellants in the case. The respondent of the case is Sterling Moore. Judge Wachtler is hearing the case.

The defendant was convicted in Kings County for sexual abuse and rape in the first degree. The offenses that the defendant was charged with occurred in his car that was parked in Queens County near the border of Kings County. The trial court gave jurisdiction to the Kings County Court for prosecution. The Appellate division reversed this order of jurisdiction and ordered a new trial. The reason was that there was a question of if the crimes were committed within 500 yards of the boundary of the two counties in question.

The People of the State of New York are appealing this reversal and argue that Kings County did have jurisdiction over the case under CPL 20.40 that states that any offense that is committed in a vehicle can be tried in any county that the vehicle passed through during the trip.

Published on: July 6, 2012

Defendant Challenges Sex Offender Risk Assessment

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is Anthony Sumpter. The case is being heard in the Criminal Court of the city of New York located in Queens County. Judge Sheryl L. Parker is overseeing the case.

The defendant has been charged with a felony complaint of second degree rape and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant entered a plea bargain and he pled guilty to attempted rape in the third degree. He was sentenced to six months in jail.

In cases such as this it is required by law that the defendant be assessed using a Risk Assessment Instrument to determine the risk of reoffending. The defendant was found to be a level two or a moderate risk for reoffending. The defendant is challenging this assessment.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Defendant Contends Impropriety of Prosecutors Office

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 10, 1992, the area of east 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in the Bronx, New York was a hotbed of drug activity. Rival drug gangs competed with each other for the drug turf using guns and violence to hold their sales areas. On this night, two brothers who were in control of that particular area, were seated in the back of a BMW parked at the corner when they were executed (murder) by a man with a gun. Both brothers were killed in the attack.

The trial that ensued convicted the defendant of being responsible for their murders. That conviction was appealed by the defendant based on the contention that he was not the man who shot (gun crime) the brothers, a juror in the trial was related to him, and that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct. At the time of his initial trial, there were five witnesses that testified that they saw the defendant kill the brothers.

These witnesses who were also drug dealers, were arrested at different times before this appeal was filed. One of the main witnesses claims that he was continually harassed by the defendant who was attempting to get him to change his testimony. He presented letters that had been sent to him from the defendant and friends of the defendant that told him that he would be killed if he did not recant his testimony. Two of the five witnesses had already met violent ends that were not attributed directly to the defendant who was in prison. After receiving one such letter, the witness applied to be transferred to a different institution for fear of his life. However, when he was transferred, it was to the same institution where the defendant was housed. This created several tense situations as the defendant had opportunity to encounter the witness on several occasions. The defendant repeatedly claimed that it was the witness who had actually executed the brothers and that he was framed for the murders.

Published on: May 6, 2012

Court Hears Appeal for Retail Theft

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant of the case is Dude Emshwiller. The appellee in the case is the State of Florida. The case is being heard in the second district of the District Court of Appeal in Florida.

Appeal

Dude Emshwiller, the appellant is appealing his original judgment and sentencing. The original sentence is for three years on the charges of grand theft.

Published on: May 5, 2012

Store Issues Flyer Warning of Habitual Shoplifter

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is Edgar Paul, et al. The respondent of the case is Edward Charles Davis, III.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he original case was heard and argued on the fourth of November in 1975. The original verdict of the case was given on the 23rd of March in 1976. A rehearing of the case was denied in May of 1976.

The original case involves a photograph of the respondent that was being used in a flyer that had pictures of active shoplifters. This photograph was used after the respondent had been convicted of shoplifting near Louisville, Kentucky. The shoplifting (petit larceny) charge was dismissed and the respondent then brought this case up against the petitioner police chiefs that issued the flyers. He states that this was a violation of his constitutional rights. The original district court that heard the case granted a dismissal motion from the petitioners.

Published on: May 5, 2012

Suspect Subjected to Strip Search

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is Lynda L. Watt. The defendant and appellant of the case is the Police Department of the City of Richardson.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer the City of Richardson is appealing the finding of the district court that states that the strip search that was performed was constitutionally invalid.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Defedant Claims she was Unlawfully Detained

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellant of the case is Jacqueline E. Morris. The defendant and appellee in the case is Albertson’s Inc. 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 the sixteenth of October in 1980, around 5:15 pm, Thelma Powell, who was an employee of Albertson’s saw a young black lady opening the cellophane wrappers of cosmetics and placing the items in her purse (petit larceny). Powell continued to watch the woman throughout the store.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Shoplifting Defendant Claims Illegal Search

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case is Gladys Carol Hutchinson. The appellee of the case is the state of Florida. The case is being heard in the second district, District Court of Appeal in the state of Florida.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing is a plea of nolo contendere for drug charges that she reserved the right to review through this court and was denied the right to suppress the charges.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Shoplifting Defenant Arrested Based on her Own Admission

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant of the case is Alma Davis. The appellee in the case is McCrory Corporation. The case is being heard in the second district of the District Court of Appeals in the State of Florida.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said Alma Davis, the appellant, was accused and then arrested for shoplifting in one of the McCrory Corporation’s stores. She was acquitted of this crime. She then brought a lawsuit into action claiming malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and false arrest. She is appealing the decision by the district court that granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant that dismissed the case.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Alleged Shoplifting Defendant Claims False Imprisonment

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs and appellee in the case is Virdie L. Smith et al. The defendants and appellants of the case are the Brookshire Brothers Inc. et al. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

The Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the original case, Donnie McClure and Virdie L. Smith sought damages against the Brookshire Brothers Inc, Kenneth Sandel and Glen Nevill. The reason for the case was malicious prosecution, civil rights violations, and false imprisonment. This particular suit was started because of the actions taken be Brookshire Brothers employees who took action against the appellee suspecting them of being shoplifters. In the original trial court damages were awarded to the plaintiffs and the defendants are appealing this verdict.