Rape Category Archives — Page 5 of 10 — New York Criminal Lawyer Blog Published by DWI & Criminal Defense Attorneys

Published on: July 19, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

On 6 January 1992, respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery and single counts of first-degree burglary, first-degree rape, and first-degree sodomy. The plea satisfied charges arising from two separate criminal incidents, the robbery of a gas station attendant and a home invasion, for which respondent was arrested and indicted separately in 1988. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years, running from his arrest. In July 1999, respondent was released to parole supervision after serving 11 years and eight months of his sentence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 19 May 2000, he was again arrested and indicted separately for three robberies. On 12 December 2001, he pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree robbery, for each of which he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, for which he was sentenced to prison for one year. The indictment satisfied by respondent’s plea to the weapon-possession count also accused him of sexual abuse. These sentences ran concurrently to each other but consecutively to the undischarged portion of the indeterminate sentence imposed on respondent in 1992. On 6 January 2006, he was released to parole supervision.

In July 2006, respondent was returned to prison for violating the conditions of his parole. In April 2007, he was again released to parole supervision but went back to prison after violating the conditions of his parole in August of that year.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Contends Abuse of Discretion by Trial Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A member of the New York City Police Department was detailed to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (Task Force). His usual assignment with the Task Force was as an undercover officer (office-one), and that was the assignment he was performing, when, on 16 July 1981, he met with an informant who later introduced him with the co-defendant.

Thereafter, meetings were set and arrangements were made for officer-one to buy quantities of cocaine (cocaine possession). The co-defendant said that he could deliver a pound from someone that he knew, the herein defendant. Accompanied by another officer (officer-two), upon their meet, defendant only promised to deliver two ounces of cocaine for the reason that they didn’t know each other. Subsequently, the parties agreed to buy the two ounces of cocaine. Shortly after officer-two produced a brown bag with money, and, while defendant was looking into the money bag, officer-two placed defendant under arrest.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The genesis of the proceeding is a notorious incident involving a brutal rape and robbery in 1973 in Manhattan. The issues presented are whether the man’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated, and also whether the trial court should have conducted an inquiry of the jurors to determine whether they had read an article in a prominent newspaper about the trial on the day it commenced.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said while awaiting trial on his case, the man was arrested for an attempted murder and rape. When arrested, the man gave his name, his date of birth and his residence in Kings County, and his prior residence in Manhattan. He claimed that he had a wife who lived in Bronx. The man was tried but the jury, however, could not reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared.

The man, under the different name, was convicted in Queens County of attempted murder and rape, and sentenced to a term of 10 years. He pleaded guilty in his case, with the understanding that he could seek to have his plea vacated if his conviction in Queens were reversed on appeal. The man was sentenced to a term of 10 years, which was to run concurrently with the term imposed on the Queens County conviction.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant has a history of being arrested under different names.

On 12 August 1972, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was arrested for possession of burglar’s tools while on a fire escape. He gave a name, name-one, with a date of birth of 30 December 1946 and an address of 180 Saratoga Avenue in Kings County.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Defendant Uses Failure to Report Rape as a Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

Two women were hired, one after the other, as data entry technicians for a company that manufactures, markets and directly ships children’s clothing and accessories. Both women were immigrants from Russia without relatives or connections in the United States. Both complained of sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual abuse from a high-level manager of the children’s clothing company where they were employed.

The first data entry technician was initially hired in February 2005 on a temporary basis upon a referral from a technical employment agency. She was paid the rate of $15 hourly which was later raised to $20 hourly when she was hired on a permanent basis after two weeks. She worked at the children’s clothing company for only two months before she was forced to resign due to intolerable working conditions at the clothing company.

She claims that on her second day at the job, the manager ran his fingers through her hair. At another time, the manager asked her to stay late and when they were alone, he asked her personal questions as to whether she had a boyfriend and actually asked her to have sex with him.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Model Survives Brutal Attack

by Stephen Bilkis

A female model dated an acquaintance. They had dinner and after-dinner conversation. The male acquaintance then started making advances of a sexual nature and the female model refused.

The male acquaintance got angry at being refused. He pulled out a five inch knife and threatened to cut the female model’s face. The female model became fearful not only for her life but also for her future as her face is something of a business asset from which she derived her living.

The male acquaintance raped and sodomized her for two hours. He cut up her clothes and also cut her up in her arms and legs during that time. The female model was hospitalized. She was traumatized and suffered anguish and emotional distress. She underwent therapy for her to deal with the fears, the nightmares and the depression which resulted from the rape.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Defendant Contends 6th Amendment Rights Were Violated During Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal case. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme court of the State of New York. The respondent in the case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Jean Cantave. The People of the State of New York are represented by John M. Castellano, Roni C. Piplani, and Sharon Y. Brodt from the District Attorneys office in Kew Gardens New York. The appellant is represented by the law offices of Lynn W.L. Fahey of New York, New York with De Nice Powell for counsel.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing an order that was made by the Queens County Supreme Court. The order was issued on the 28th of June, 2008 and convicted the defendant of first degree rape and first degree sexual abuse.

Case Background

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 7, 2012

Defendant Claims Rights Against Doube Jeopardy Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, Appellate Division. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Dawson Sharpe.

The defendant is appealing an order that was made by the Queens County Supreme Court on the 30th of October, 1986. The order convicted the defendant of first degree burglary, first degree robbery, second degree kidnapping, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree. There are two judgments that convicted the defendant for first degree rape and attempted sodomy in the first degree as well as other counts of robbery, rape, and sodomy.

Case History

Published on: July 6, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction of Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with the anonymous respondent, Trevon Y. and the appellant the Presentment Agency. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Judges hearing the case are Mark C. Dillon, J.P., Ariel E. Belen, Ruth C. Balkin, and Leonard B. Austin, JJ.

The Presentment Agency is appealing a juvenile proceeding which took place in the Family Court of Queens County. The original order from the Queens County Family Court is dated the 27th of April, 2010 and dismissed the original petition of the case with prejudice.

Case Background