Robbery

Published on: August 19, 2012

Defendant Requests Re-sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was convicted after a jury trial of murder. Upon the conviction, the woman was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of seventeen years. She was also convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to an indeterminate term five years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of two and one-half years to run concurrent with the life sentence.

The woman moves personally without a notice of motion or sworn affidavit, for re-sentencing to a determinate term of imprisonment. She did, however, verify that she served the District Attorney. Notwithstanding such service, the District Attorney failed to file any opposition. Consequently, on February 4, 2010, the court deemed the woman’s motion submitted on default.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said irrespective of the District Attorney’s default, the woman fails to provide any legal basis upon which the court may grant the relief requested. While she refers to the recently passed laws that may allow people who are serving life sentences to be considered to be re-sentenced to an alternate determinate sentence, she fails to identify any legal basis in support of her application. Indeed, it appears to the court that her claim is predicated on having been denied parole, stating that he has been denied parole release based solely for her crime, which will never change. It is served above and beyond the minimum term on both indictments and the maximum on one that she is not asking for a reduction that will minimize the responsibility to accept the punishment of her crime, however, the past cannot be change and to be denied release solely for her offense, which will not change is illogical and excessive. The woman believes that she is eligible to file an application under the standards of law and respectfully that she be re-sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Court Discusses Crime of Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court dismissed the indictment against defendants for conspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), hindering prosecution in the third degree (two counts) and official misconduct (two counts).

In the early 1960s, JF, a resident of Queens County and meter reader for a company, entered upon a scheme under which he accepted money from various investors, agreeing to pay them a return of 1% A week and explaining to them that this high return was being paid by a factoring company which loaned out moneys to various companies in the fur, textile and other industries where there was a need for immediate cash. In fact, there was no factoring company and JF was merely repaying these people from their own moneys. Among the hundreds of persons who invested with him were members of the staff of the District Attorney of Queens County, including defendants.

In March of 1971, after being the victim of a real or apparent robbery, and being ostensibly unable to continue to pay off investors, JF fled New York City and went to San Francisco. His whereabouts were unknown to the authorities until a year later, when he was discovered by two irate investors and was returned to New York City by them. Within two weeks, he was indicted for 35 counts of grand larceny by a Queens County Grand Jury upon presentation of the case by the District Attorney’s office. At that time, defendant was the District Attorney of Queens County, his son-in-law, was the Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney and another defendant was a County Detective in the District Attorney’s office.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Defendant Moves to Suppress Physical Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A detective led a police team that was investigating the deaths of a two man. The bodies of the two victims were discovered in the bathroom of the other man’s apartment. Both men had been bound with duct tape and shot through the head. When the detective and his colleague went to the apartment, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue (marijuana possession). The police later discovered that the other man had been a low-level drug dealer.

A witness, who claimed to have been a close friend of the other victim undergone interview with the detective, during their discussions, the witness stated that he knew the victim and they had been friends for fifteen years. The witness also stated that the victim had been a marijuana dealer with regular clientele. He also revealed that he had been present in the victim’s apartment when the victim sold between a half-pound and a pound of marijuana to another man. The witness also asserts that the victim had also been well acquainted with his client, whom he sold the pound of marijuana. The witness further states that the victim told him about a shipment of 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana and had some out-of-town buyers for it. The victim was nervous about so large a shipment and his client was present when the victim mentioned the prospective sale to the witness.

The police utilized the information from the witness to obtain a photograph of the victim’s client. They put the photograph into a computer-generated photo array which they showed the witness. The witness identified the person pictured in the photograph as the client who purchased the marijuana from the victim. The police also obtained a number of addresses of locations that were linked to the client. Another detective informed the head detective that the victim’s client had a reputation for robbing drug dealers. At about 7:00 pm that same day, the detectives visited one of the apartments in the hope of finding the victim’s client.

Published on: July 10, 2012

Court Decides Parole for SOMTA Qualifying Offense

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent Mustafa Rashid pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery, and single counts of first-degree burglar, first-degree rape, and first-degree sodomy. This plea satisfied charges arising from two separate criminal incident the robbery of a gas station attendant and a home invasion, for which Rashid 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.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, Rashid was released to parole supervision in July 1999, after serving 11 years and eight months of his sentence. But he was again arrested and indicted separately for three robberies. Thereafter, 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 Rashid’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 Rashid in 1992. He was subsequently released to parole supervision.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, Rashid was returned to prison for violating the conditions of his parole. He was released to parole supervision again in April 2007, but went back to prison after violating the conditions of his parole in August of that year. Rashid was next released to parole supervision in early 2008. He was arrested for the misdemeanor crimes of petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree on May 6, 2008. Upon pleading guilty to petit larceny, Rashid received a definite sentence, which he served at Rikers Island, a local correctional facility. Rashid remained subject to the supervision of the State Division of Parole throughout his time at Rikers Island, but his parole was not revoked, apparently because his jail sentence ended days before his parole expiration date: Rashid was freed from Rikers Island, and his parole supervision ended, when he reached the maximum term (20 years) of his consecutive indeterminate sentences.

Published on: July 6, 2012

Hospital Loses Rape Kit

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Criminal Term of the Queens County Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Andre D. Miller. Judge David Goldstein is overseeing the case.

The issue at hand is whether or not the loss of a rape kit, either by the police or a hospital, requires a sanction to be imposed.

Case Background

Published on: July 2, 2012

Defendant Alleges He Was Not Informed About Deportation

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant, Hopeton Gooden. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Bronx County. The defendant of the case has moved to vacate his judgment of conviction.

Case Background

On the 15th of May in 1975 a judgment against the defendant was entered that convicted him of robbery in the third degree. The defendant was then sentenced to a maximum imprisonment of four years.

Published on: July 2, 2012

Defendant Contends Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant of this case is Irone Bradford. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The case is being heard in the Trial term of the Supreme Court located in New York County. Judge Jack Rosenburg is overseeing the case.

The defendant has pled guilty to the crime of second degree robbery and is now awaiting his sentence. The defendant is making an attack on the constitutionality of section 60.05 of the Penal Law.

Case Arguments and Decisions

Published on: July 1, 2012

Defendant Claims Conviction Violates Equal Protection Laws

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case involving the People of the State of New York versus the defendant Michael D. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Queens County.

The defendant, Michael D. has moved for this court to set aside his sentencing based on the fact that his sentencing was in violation of his rights under the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States of America and is therefore not valid.

Case Background

Published on: June 29, 2012

Defendant Claims Bringing Up Prior Acts Prejudiced Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

Drug Possession crimes are a problem in every city in the United States, but courts do not usually expect to find them on their own back doorsteps. In the case of the Supreme Court of Bronx County in 1972, they did not expect to find the drug problem on the very steps of the courthouse. However, that is exactly what transpired in September of 1972. An undercover narcotics team was working a case involving a drug ring that was operating out of Franz Segal Park just around the corner from the Bronx County Supreme Court building. The narcotics undercover team made three different purchases of narcotics from the dealer on September 8, 11, and 12.

The undercover officer would meet with the dealer in Franz Park, make the purchase, and then return to the team with the cocaine. The narcotic would be tested to ensure that it was cocaine. The undercover officer was wearing a wire so that the transaction was tape recorded. However, there was no video at the time that was effective in the field. Following the third purchase, the defendant was arrested for trafficking in narcotics. In his trial, he testified that he was not a drug dealer and that he had never sold anyone any drugs. The undercover team had to testify that they had not witnessed the transactions and had only seen the undercover officer leave with the money and come back with the cocaine (cocaine possession).

Interestingly, at trial the prosecutor questioned the officer extensively about the purchases that he made from the defendant in Franz Park. He went in to great detail to show that the time and place of the transaction for which the defendant was charged was identical to the time and place in which he had previously been arrested for dealing drugs. The problem with this line of questioning was that according to the law, prior offenses can only be brought up in trial to show the credibility of the witness. A prosecutor may not use questioning on previous acts to show a propensity to commit the crime that the defendant is on trial. That policy is set forth in People v. Schwartzman, Supra, 24 N.Y.2d p. 247, 299 N.Y.S. 2d p. 822, 247 N.E.2d p. 645. The crimes for which the prosecutor was referring were the two prior drug deals that were under indictment, yet not adjudicated by the time of the trial in question.

Published on: June 1, 2012

Defendant Charged with Sex Crimes, Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted of criminal cocaine possession and sale; and criminal marijuana sale when he sold cocaine and marijuana to an undercover police officer at nine different times and at nine different places.

Because of the sales of controlled substances to undercover police officers, the police had enough bases for a search warrant. When they searched the man’s apartment they found cocaine there. The man pleaded guilty to criminal sale and was sentenced to a prison term of 7 ½ to 15 years. After his conviction and pending his sentencing, the man was still out on bail. He undertook before the Court to appear whenever his presence was required and he also undertook not to be arrested on new charges.

During the time of his conditional release, the man had sex with a thirteen year old girl who was his neighbor’s daughter. He had sex with her in his apartment five different times. The thirteen year old girl got pregnant and the man moved to a different apartment in another building.