Rape Category Archives — Page 3 of 10 — New York Criminal Lawyer Blog Published by DWI & Criminal Defense Attorneys

Published on: July 31, 2013

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact

by Stephen Bilkis

A case has been filed against the defendant. He is accused of the crimes of Rape in the First Degree (2 Counts), Sodomy in the First Degree (2 Counts), Sexual Abuse in the First Degree (2 Counts), and Burglary in the Second Degree.

The charges are that defendant on 18 November 1987 knowingly entered unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit the crimes of Rape and Sodomy therein, and engaged in sexual intercourse and deviate sexual intercourse with a female by forcible compulsion not prostitution.

On 21 April 1988 the criminal defendant entered a plea of guilty to Attempted Rape in the First Degree in Violation of Sections 110/130.35(1) of the Penal Law, a Class “C” violent felony, in full satisfaction of the charges against him. The defendant will be sentenced as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment having a maximum term of 15 years and a minimum of 7 years 6 months.

Published on: July 18, 2013

A resentence of another defendant was imposed

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 March 2003, the County Court of Suffolk County rendered judgment convicting defendant of rape in the first degree (five counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (seventeen counts), and endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict. The criminal defendant filed an appeal from the said judgment and brought up for review the denial of the defendant’s motions to suppress the testimony of the complainants, and the denial of his separate motion to sever the counts as to one complainant from the counts as to the other complainant.

The Appellate Court affirmed the County Court’s decision.

Here, the defendant was tried under a multi-count indictment on charges of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangerment of one child, and on charges of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangerment of another child. Based on the records of the case, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to sever the charges in the indictment pertaining to each child since the charges involved the same or similar law, and there was nothing in the record indicating that the jury was unable to separately consider the discrete charges, as held in the cases of People v Berta in 1995; People v Prezioso in 1993; and People v Nickel in 2005. The County Court also properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the testimony of the complainants. Pursuant to the court’s ruling in the cases of People v Kemp in 1998; People v Alvarez in 1993; and People v Michael M. in 1994, in the absence of any non-speculative evidence that the children’s testimony resulted from undue suggestion by persons who interviewed them, the motion was properly denied. The County Court also correctly concluded, following an in-camera inspection, that the complainants’ school records and Suffolk County Child Protective Services files were neither exculpatory nor material. This was the ruling in the cases of Pennsylvania v Ritchie in 1987; People v Vilardi in 1990; and People v Gissendanner in 1979. With regard to the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s summation required a reversal of the conviction, this was unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object or raised only general objections to the prosecutor’s remarks. The defendant did not request curative instructions when his objections were sustained, and only belatedly moved for a mistrial after the case was submitted to the jury. In any event, the challenged remarks were either responsive to the defense counsel’s summation or fair comment upon the evidence. With regard to the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, this was bereft of merit. As held in the cases of People v Gonzalez in 2005 and People v Benevento, unsuccessful trial strategies and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. With regard to the defendant’s remaining contentions, these were unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, were without merit. No robbery was involved.

Published on: December 9, 2012

Defendant Claims Right to Speedy Trial Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiff’s in this matter against the defendants D.W., who is also known as A.J., W.N. who is also known as W., and C.P., who is also known as A.. This case is being heard in the Westchester County Court. The defendant, D.W. has moved for an order to dismiss the instant indictment against him claiming that his rights to a speedy trial have been violated.

Case Background

The defendants have been charged in an indictment for a number of different crimes including forcible rape and forcible sodomy of a woman over a period of time from the 25th through the 26th of November, 1992. Defendant Williams is charged with 10 separate counts of rape in the first degree and 9 separate counts of sodomy in the first degree. All three of the defendants have been charged with an additional count of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

Published on: December 7, 2012

Court Discusses Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York in New York County. The People of the State of New York are the petitioners in this matter and the respondent is J.S..

Case Facts

A New York Criminal Lawyer said J.S., the respondent in this case, pled guilty in 1968 to Rape and Robbery in the first degree. This plea satisfied numerous charges of rape, sodomy, robbery, assault, and other charges that arose from several attacks on women that he had allegedly committed around the City College campus in Manhattan. He was sentenced to five to fifteen years for this guilty plea. However, after several appeals his plea of guilty was invalidated by a grant from the Supreme Court of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It was found by the court that the Suggs was not mentally competent at the time of the plea that had led to his conviction a decade earlier. This decision was affirmed and Suggs was released from prison in 1978.

Published on: December 6, 2012

Court Denies Motion for Habeaus Corpus

by Stephen Bilkis

Bronx County Rape 1

This case involves the People of the State of New York and ex rel. C.T. relater against the respondent R.M. as the Warden of the Auburn State Prison. The case is being heard in front of the Supreme Court of Cayuga County.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case before the court is a habeas corpus proceeding that is being brought by C.T. who is an inmate of the Auburn Prison. C.T. was convicted of first degree rape, first degree robbery, and second degree assault in the Bronx County Court. The punishments for these crimes were 10 to 20 years for the rape charge, 15 to 30 years for the robbery charge, and 2 and ½ years to 5 years for the assault charge.

Published on: December 1, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The state of New York is the petitioner in this case. E. T. is the respondent. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of Bronx County. The New York State Attorney General filed a petition stating that the respondent, E. T. is a detained sex offender who requires civil management according to the Mental Hygiene Law, article 10.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree on the 31st of January, 2001. He was sentenced on the 2nd of March, 2001 to a term of five years incarceration in a state prison. His sentence included five years of probation after his release from prison.

Published on: November 25, 2012

Defendant Contends Juror was Forced Into a Decision

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case of appeal. The appellant is J.L., who is appealing a verdict that was made by a jury in the Supreme Court of Bronx County on the 19th of March, 1984. This verdict convicted the defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Case Background

The appeal in this case is made by the defendant as a result of a jury trial. A hearing testimony was held and took place over a period of four days. The jury commenced into deliberations at close to 12 p.m. on February 6, 1984. After deliberations and a rereading of some of the testimony of the case, the jury went to their hotel for the night at 11 p.m.

Published on: November 22, 2012

Court Discusses Risk Assessment Factors

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is W.F.. The County Court of the City of New York in Madison County is the location where this case is being heard.

The defendant was convicted based on a guilty plea, to rape in the second degree, which is a class D felony. He was sentenced on the 5th of September, 2002 to an indeterminate period of 1 to 3 years. He is scheduled to be released to parole on the 25th of April, 2004. The court is being called upon to assess the risk of the defendant.

Defendant’s History

Published on: October 23, 2012

Defense Contends Unreasonable Delay in Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is a violent predicate felon. On June 6, 1996, he entered a plea of guilty to the crime of assault in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law, Sec. 120.05(7), a subdivision which is applicable to assaults committed inside a prison facility. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he had been charged with three counts of this crime for viciously assaulting three correction officers with a sharpened toothbrush while being housed at the Rikers Island Correction Facility. At the time, he was incarcerated there under an earlier New York County indictment to answer for the crime of attempted rape in the first degree, more specifically, for forcibly throwing a woman to the ground on 42nd Street while shouting obscenities, demanding sexual intercourse and threatening death. With respect to the attempted rape charge, defendant, one-and-one-half years prior to the entry of the within plea entered a plea of guilty in satisfaction thereof. Despite the elapsation, now, of two years, he has yet to be sentenced in New York County.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, notwithstanding, and following four monthly adjournments before this bench, he claims a violation of C.P.L. 380.30(1), moving to divest the Court of jurisdiction that his conviction be vacated and the accusatory instrument dismissed. Defendant contends a failure to pronounce sentence “without unreasonable delay” has prejudiced him. By way of explanation, he sets forth that the 24 months of postponements of sentencing in New York County has been by acquiescence. The Court denied his motion.

The issue in this case is whether defendant is entitled to the dismissal of his case on the ground of failure to pronounce sentence without unreasonable delay.

Published on: September 12, 2012

Court Discusses Rape by Forcible Compulsion

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant pleaded guilty to the sole count of superior court information charging him with third-degree rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with a person less than 17 years old. The majority upholds an assessment of 10 points for forcible compulsion even though defendant never was charged with rape by forcible compulsion in the superior court information, and an assessment of 15 points for refusing to accept responsibility because he denied he was guilty of a forcible compulsion rape. The Supreme Court, Bronx County adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. An New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant appealed.

The issue in this case is whether defendant is guilty of the crime charged.

The Court can uphold the assessment for forcible compulsion only if the People met their burden of proving forcible compulsion by clear and convincing evidence. That is, only if the People proved it “highly probable” that defendant committed the rape by forcible compulsion. The sole item of proof supporting this assessment is plainly hearsay, a statement in the felony complaint, albeit one sworn to by the victim, who was 13 years old at the time, to the effect that defendant committed the act of intercourse while another person held her down and a third person held her leg open. The Court agrees with the majority that the assessment for forcible compulsion is not precluded by the fact that defendant was not charged in the superior court information with forcible rape.