Robbery

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendants Claim Trial Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 7, 1984, at approximately 5:00 P.M., a 20-year-old taxi driver met his friend who spent the evening with him riding in the front seat of his cab. At about 8:30 P.M. he proceeded to Union Place pursuant to a radio dispatch and picked up two young men, the accused and the co-accused. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that although the taxi driver did not know the pair, his companion recognized them from the neighborhood. The taxi driver was directed by the men to take them to Yonkers. During the trip, which took approximately four minutes, no one spoke.

When they arrived at the destination, the accused told the taxi driver that he was going inside the building to find some friends and asked to wait for him. The co-accused remained in the back seat of the taxi while the accused went inside. Shortly thereafter, the accused returned, accompanied by another male, and asked the taxi driver to drive them back to Union Place.

As the taxi was travelling down the hill that approached Union Place, the accused placed a gun to the taxi driver’s neck and told him to give his money. He saw the gun and felt it pressed to his neck. In response to the demand, he gave the robbers approximately $20 he had in his shirt pocket and an additional sum of approximately $100 from his wallet. The three men then exited the taxi and ran off into the darkness. During the robbery, the co-accused pushed the driver’s companion forward in the front seat to keep her head down.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Decides if Accomplice will be Convicted

by Stephen Bilkis

Five men formed a gang whose only purpose was to prey on drug dealers. They targeted drug dealers who were always awash with cash and robbed them. They also took the drugs they found on the drug dealers and sold these on the street. One night, on February 12, 1997, all five men planned to rob a drug dealer who had a first floor apartment on Riverside Drive.

Of the five men, one was to be the driver and wait for them in the car while the others entered the apartment of the drug dealer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said their plan was to ring the doorbell and when they were buzzed in, they would force themselves inside the apartment of the drug dealer. The group came late and they missed the drug dealer who had already left his apartment. There was no one home. So the five men went their separate ways.

A few hours later four of the five men came together to see if the drug dealer had come back to his apartment; the driver did not go back with his four friends on the second robbery attempt. He went home.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defendant Brings Case for Sentencing Error

by Stephen Bilkis

On 3 May 1995, defendant was convicted of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, one count of Assault in the Second Degree, one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree.

On 15 May 1995, defendant was sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years for each Robbery in the First Degree conviction, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years on five of the six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three and one-half to seven years on the Assault in the Second Degree conviction, one year determinate on the Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree conviction, and one year determinate for both Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree counts.

The sentencing Court ran the two Robbery in the First Degree sentences, and two of the Robbery in the Second Degree sentences consecutive to one another, for a total indeterminate sentence of thirty-five (35) to seventy (70) years.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Robbery Defendant Claims Misidentification in Line Up

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 November 1988, early in the evening, A New York City Police Officer and his partner, both assigned to the 34th Precinct, were on routine motor patrol, when they received a radio message directing them to the corner of 213th Street and Broadway, New York County.

As the officers were approaching the location, one of the officers saw one man holding another man, with a woman standing nearby.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men, informed the officer that, after he had heard a woman screaming, he saw the man, who he was now holding and who was later identified as the defendant, running from Inwood Park, carrying a brown pocketbook, and he responded by seizing and holding the defendant, while a bystander summoned the police. At that point, the man gave the officer a rubberized hammer handle, as well as the pocketbook, and he told the officer that he had taken both of those items from the defendant. Further, the man explained to the officer that the defendant had attempted to strike him with the hammer handle.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Court Discusses Felony Murder Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

According to the accused man’s trial testimony, he and several others met at an uptown hotel to arrange a robbery of their acquaintances that were operating a shooting gallery for heroin in a nearby apartment. They completed their plans and proceeded to the apartment, armed with at least two loaded guns. They ordered the occupants to strip, tied them up, blindfolded them and removed their money and clothing.

The accused man states that after he left the apartment, as he was going down the stairs his female accomplice shot the owner of the apartment, the man happened to be her former lover. He claims that she was motivated by resentments stemming from this prior relationship, and that the killing was therefore not connected to the robbery.

New York Criminal Lawyer the jury offered no testimony to dispute the accused man’s version of the events. The surviving robbery victims did not see who actually fired the fatal shot as they were all still blindfolded. The accused man does not argue, nor could he, that the fact that he was not proven to be the actual shooter absolves him of the felony murder charge. Having admitted his participation in the robbery, the accused man would ordinarily be responsible for the murder of the apartment owner even if he lacked the specific intent to cause his death and did not personally contribute to the homicide. He claims, however, that the homicide case was not sufficiently connected to the felony to invoke the provisions of the felony murder statute. At issue is the meaning (if any) of the phrase in furtherance of the robbery as used in the felony murder statute. The question does not appear to have been answered in any reported decisions.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Court Reverses Prior Ruling Regarding Robbery Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

One Saturday morning, a military air force base exchange was robbed. The robber took nearly $30,000 from the cashier’s safe and putted into a plastic bag taken from a trash can near the cashier’s cage.

At the trial, a New York Criminal Lawyer said none of the five witnesses could identify the robber. The robber wore a hooded sweatshirt, used a towel to conceal the lower half of his face and another towel wrapped around his arm during the incident. One of the witnesses testified that she saw a black object inside the towel, which she thought was a gun. Another witness also testified that when a woman approached the cashier’s window in the exchange office, the robber raised his towel-wrapped arm, pointed it to the woman and threatened to kill her.

After the robbery, an airman mentioned the incident to his colleague. Less than three hours later, the airman paid a car dealer amounting almost $6,000 in cash as a down payment on a new car. The money that the airman spend was still bundled in wrappers that were dated, initiated and stamped with an official seal of the base exchange and during that weekend the robber spent close to an additional $2,000 on other purchases.

Published on: April 18, 2012

After Multiple Charges, Defendant Pleads Insanity Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

After a jury trial, a man was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, three counts of assault in the first degree, 15 counts each of kidnapping in the second degree and kidnapping in the second degree, five counts each of assault in the second degree as a hate crime and of assault in the second degree, and three counts each of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as second violent felony offender, to a cumulative term of 240 years.

In the main charge on the insanity argument and its response to notes from the deliberating jury, the court properly read the jury instructions pattern which charge on the said subject. The court properly declined to add language instructing the jury to consider the man’s capacity to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct from a subjective point of view relating to the false beliefs that he allegedly held as a result of psychiatric illness. The standard language permitted the jury to accept the man’s insanity argument under the theory that his asserted mental disorder caused him to sincerely believe that society would approve of his immoral acts because they were divinely commanded. The court was not obligated to add the language to that effect or to give any special instructions concerning a false belief. The court also concludes that the supplemental instructions were meaningful responses to the notes. The court further notes that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the man did not have any delusions or hallucinations about being divinely commanded to commit his criminal acts.

The man’s first trial resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. On his retrial, the man was convicted of 53 counts, including attempted murder and assault, both as hate crimes, and was acquitted of attempted murder in the first degree. The only defense raised was that the man was not responsible by reason of mental disease when he committed the criminal acts. The psychiatrist called by the Court found that the man was legally sane when he acted, but other examining psychiatrists found man to be seriously delusional and/or insane.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Robbery Defendant Seeks to Have Confession Excluded

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 22, 1965, a Supreme Court judgment was handed down convicting a man of robbery in the third degree. He pleaded guilty and was given a sentence in accordance with the fact that he was a second felony offender. He later appealed on August 9, 1965 requesting that certain evidence should be suppressed. That motion was over ruled.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on September 30, 1965, he attempted to have his alleged confession excluded and attempted that again on November 22, 1965. Both motions to exclude his confession and to withdraw his guilty plea were reviewed. The motion to exclude his confession was denied, but his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and substitute a plea of not guilty to the indictment was granted and the case was sent to trial. On September 30, 1965, the justices reversed the conviction on the law and then agreed to exclude his confession.

The defendant in question was arrested in the act of attempting to burglarize a closed and locked business at approximately eleven o’clock at night. He was seen standing on the roof of a garage, attempting to gain entry through a closed window. The defendant refused to answer questions at the scene and a search of his person revealed that he was carrying a knife that was partially broken apparently while trying to force open the window. Also on his person, were identification cards and papers that belonged to a pharmacist who had recently been robbed.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Robbery Results in Death of Victim

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 5, 1975, an elderly woman was living alone in her home in forest Hills, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said her home was attached to another home on the side of it and she had difficulties getting along with her neighbor. On December 5th , burglars broke in to her home and tied and gagged her as they rummaged through her home and stole her belongings including several fur coats. A piece of cloth was shoved into her mouth to work as a gag. During the robbery or shortly thereafter, the gag that was in her mouth cut off her oxygen supply and she suffocated.

On December 12, police arrested a 58 year-old used furniture store owner in Manhattan. He was not connected to the victim by any obvious means. The police also arrested two employees of the furniture salesman. One was a man with a lengthy criminal record for possession of stolen property and the other was a seventeen year-old female who was also an employee of the shop. The trio was transported to the 106th precinct where they were Mirandized. The seventeen year old girl had a history of drug usage and the police suspected that the events of that night were fueled by the prospect that the crime might be drug related.

However, when the trio was Mirandized, the defendant store owner stated that he understood his rights and that he did not want to make any statements. He did not request an attorney. After four and a half hours, the defendant called the detective to his cell and informed him that the wanted to speak to a District Attorney about a deal in his case. The officer informed him that the District Attorneys had already gone home for the day. The detective asked him if he wanted to tell him anything and the defendant did not respond.

Published on: March 11, 2012

Defendant Charged with Robbery Claims They Did not have a Weapon

by Stephen Bilkis

Vincent Knowles was charged with one count of robbery in the first degree. He admitted in the hearing before the court that he did steal money, a wallet, jewelry and subway tokens from a Henry Laylock. He also testified that he placed his hand in his pocket, which looked like he had a gun so Mr. Laylock will give him his valuables. The fact was he was unarmed. He pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said if a person displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm when he forcibly steals a property, he is guilty of robbery in the second degree according to the law.

The Trial Court had accepted Mr. Knowles plea, and the case was given to the Supreme Court Appellate Division for review. The Court of Appeals in their review said they need to be one to check if the letter of the law was correctly interpreted in this case. The law states a person who “displays what appears to be” a firearm during a robbery is guilty of robbery in the second degree. The focus they said is to be on the word appears instead of display. In this case, Mr. Knowles did not display anything as his hand was in his pocket during the robbery. In his testimony, he admitted he pretended it was a gun.

Before any revision to the Penal Law, the only law which pertained to firearms was with the robbery in the first degree, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer. This is when a person is armed with a dangerous weapon when committing a robbery. It was not defined by the unrevised law, but the court had always ruled to show the weapon needs to be working and loaded for it to be deemed dangerous. If the gun is inoperable and not loaded, it fell on the robbery in the third degree. So even in the previous statute, this was not a robbery in the first degree.