Articles Posted in Nassau

In this sex crime case, by an Information, the State of Florida charged that, on October 1, 1997, petitioner, who was 18 at the time, violated former Florida Statutes § 800.04(3) by committing an act of Sexual Battery as defined in Florida Statutes § 794.011(1)(h) upon a child under the age of 16. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge for which the court withheld adjudication, and the court entered an “order of supervision” placing petitioner on “sexual offender probation” for four years. In March 2001, the Florida court granted a defense motion to terminate petitioner’s probation and petitioner was thereafter required to register as a sex offender under Florida Statutes § 943.0435, Florida’s version of SORA.

Prior to moving to New York, petitioner sent a letter to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) informing it that he was required to register as a sex crime offender in Florida and the he intended to move to New York by February 8, 2006. DCJS thereafter sent petitioner sex crime offender registration form, which petitioner executed and returned. After receiving this form, the Board, in a letter determined that petitioner was a sex crime offender required to register under SORA, and upon the recommendation of the Board, the court determined that petitioner’s Final Risk Level Determination was level 1.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the Board’s determination that he was required to register as a sex crime offender under SORA. In a decision the court determined that petitioner was entitled to a hearing to determine whether petitioner was properly served with the Board’s notification letter informing him that he was subject to the registration requirements of SORA. Rather than proceed with such a hearing, the Board, stipulated that it would recommence the registration process and “re-issue a final determination.” Thereafter, the Board issued a new determination informing petitioner that he was required to register under SORA because he had been convicted of sex offense as set forth in Correction Law § 168-a.

The State of New York appeals from an order, inter alia, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim against it on the ground that claimant fails to meet the statutory criteria to maintain an action for wrongful conviction.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether claimant is entitled to his action for wrongful conviction.

The Court said that, to maintain an action for unjust conviction against the State within the ambit of Court of Claims Act 8-b(3)(b)(ii), “claimant must establish by documentary evidence that his judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated, and the accusatory instrument dismissed” on one of the grounds stated in CPL 440.10(1)(a), (b), (c), (e), or (g). As pertinent to the facts of this case, claimant must show that: “(b) the judgment was procured by duress, misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the court or a prosecutor or a person acting for or in behalf of a court or a prosecutor”. As he alleges no prosecutorial misconduct, in order to proceed, claimant must demonstrate that the court employed “duress, misrepresentation or fraud” in obtaining his plea of guilty to the reduced charge. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the statutory pleading requirements are explicit: The claim shall state facts in sufficient detail to permit the court to find that claimant is likely to succeed at trial in proving that (a) he did not commit any of the acts charged in the accusatory instrument or his acts or omissions charged in the accusatory instrument did not constitute a felony or misdemeanor against the state, and (b) he did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction. The claim shall be verified by the claimant. If the court finds after reading the claim that claimant is not likely to succeed at trial, it shall dismiss the claim, either on its own motion or on the motion of the state.

Continue reading

The defendant in this case was charged with Rape in the first degree. He filed a motion to suppress any line-up or photograph identification. He argued that the result of a line-up conducted by the Suffolk County Police Department violated his rights under the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Prosecution opposed defendant’s motion, stating that ” . . . defendant has failed to make any factual allegations which are required pursuant to § 710.60 subd. (1) of the CPL . . . ” and therefore, “defendant’s motion . . . should be denied as a matter of law pursuant to § 710.60(3)(b) of the CPL.” However, in the alternative, the Prosecution asserted that defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated.

In support of his motion, Defendant presented an affirmation made by his attorney upon information and belief, the source of his information and the grounds for his belief being the defendant. The affirmation states that the lineup conducted by the Suffolk County Police Department ” . . . was conducted without defendant’s consent or waiver of the presence of counsel . . . ” and that defendant was ” . . . physically forced to participate in a line-up without the benefit of his Miranda warnings or presence of counsel known to the members of the Sixth Precinct to be at that time, representing defendant.”

Continue reading

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case against the defendant Luis Pantojas. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Bronx County, Part C. The People have moved for an order to amend the direction of a duly empanelled Grand Jury from Bronx County to include the phrase “acting in concert with others” in the proof that was submitted in the case.

Case Background

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said on the 19th of February, 1986, the Grand Jury heard evidence against the defendant, Luis Pantojas in regard to crimes that allegedly occurred on the 11th of February, 1986. The incident included the defendant, two other males that were not found and a fourteen year old girl complainant. The complainant accused the defendant of accessorial sodomy and accessorial rape.

Continue reading

A man lived in his mother’s house with his sister who was a minor. One day, the man chanced upon his sister in the bathroom of their house. The man tried to rape his sister. The sister resisted and was able to escape from her brother. She reported the incident to their mother and she reported the incident to the police.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the brother was charged with attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. Prior to the arraignment, the lawyer for the man asked the trial court to order a psychiatric evaluation of the accused. Two psychiatrists examined the accused and they had similar findings. The first psychiatrist rendered an opinion that the accused suffered from psychiatric disorders which were not specified. A second psychiatrist rendered an opinion that the accused suffered from psychosis. Both of them agreed on the finding that the accused was a threat to himself and to others but that he was fit to stand trial because he was capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him and he can assist in defending himself. Both psychiatrists also recommended that the accused be hospitalized. For this reason, the accused was placed under the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment and ten years probation.

Continue reading

On December 10, 1980, two men armed with a shot gun entered a fast food restaurant in Nassau County. They threatened the employees with bodily harm if they did not hand over the cash in the cash box. When the two female employees handed to the two armed men all the cash from the cash box, the men forced the women to go outside the restaurant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they forced the women to ride in their car which was parked outside the restaurant.

The two armed men drove for twenty minutes from the fast food restaurant in Nassau County to a dead end street somewhere in Suffolk County. During the drive, the men took turns feeling up the women’s skirts and shirts. The men fondled the women’s breasts and sex organs.

When they got to the dead end street in Suffolk County, the men took turns raping the two women. When the men were exhausted, they threatened the women and their families with death should they report the rapes to the police. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the two men then let the two women go.

This case is about the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the Petitioner who challenged his continued incarceration in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). He argued that the delinquent time assessment imposed on November 5, 2008 following his final parole revocation hearing already expired on February 17, 2010.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it all started on September 10, 1997 when petitioner was convicted of the crime of Arson in the second degree and was given an indeterminate sentence of 7 to 14 years. In 2006, he was released from DOCS custody to parole supervision. His parole was subsequently revoked and was sent to a drug rehab center. In January 2007, Petitioner was released back to community based parole supervision, but thereafter, violated again the conditions of his release. He was returned to DOCS custody as a parole violator.

On September 10, 1997 petitioner was sentenced in Oneida County Court, to an indeterminate sentence of 7 to 14 years, upon his conviction of the crime of Arson 2°. Petitioner was first released form DOCS custody to parole supervision in September of 2006. His parole, however, was subsequently revoked but restored at the Willard Drug Treatment Campus. Petitioner was released from Willard back to community-based parole supervision in January of 2007 but he again violated the conditions of release and was returned to DOCS custody as a parole violator.

Continue reading

Many people do not appreciate the unpredictability that comes with the job for an emergency medical technician. Often, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said they do not have any idea of the volatility of the situation that they have been dispatched to. In most cities, if the call is for a victim of a fight, the EMTs are directed to wait until police officers have certified that the scene is safe for them to enter before they go in. In some situations, they are sent into a volatile situation without advance notice.

On Christmas Eve morning of 2006 at about two thirty, one EMT crew discovered that no call can be considered safe, even as you are leaving it. The man and woman team had responded to a call of a woman with an injured hand and possibly another injured person at the scene at 190 Butler Street in Brooklyn, New York. It appears from the transcript of the call that the technicians were notified that the injuries were the result of a fight, but police were not dispatched to the call until the female EMT placed the radio call for emergency assistance.

The team had arrived at the apartment building and noticed that there was a large group of people in front of the building. Everyone seemed to be in a festive mood and greetings were exchanged. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the team was taken to an apartment in the back where they treated the female with the injured hand and recommended that she go to a hospital for x-rays. She told the team that she had been in a verbal argument with a man and had punched the wall and injured her hand. She stated that she would go to the hospital on her own and the team walked back to their marked ambulance.

Continue reading