New York

Published on: December 4, 2012

Court Discusses Drug Crime of Facilitation

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant L. is charged with facilitating a felony with respect to a “buy and bust” operation, in that, as reflected in the indictment “the defendant L. believing it was probable that he was rendering aid to T.P., a person who intended to commit a drug possession crime, did engage in conduct which provided such person with the means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aided such person to commit a felony.”

With the respect to the events underlying the indictment, the grand jury minutes contain the following testimony by the undercover officer, which constitutes all of the evidence as to the defendant’s conduct on October 9, 2006:

“I approached J.B. [defendant L.] and asked him if anybody was out. J.B. stated to me that he was looking too. So then we went together to the front of 1930 Grand Concourse. At that point in time we met with T.P., and J.G. stated to us to go inside the building. So then we went inside the building. I went in the rear with J.B. and J.G.. We walked to the rear of the building to the first floor, up one flight of stairs. At that point in time J.G. stated to me, “How many do you want?” I stated to him, “Two.” He then handed me two glassines which contained alleged heroin which was ink-stamped, “Magic.” I then handed J.G. $20 prerecorded buy money. At that point in time, as we were leaving, J.B. stated to me that I had to like “hook him up.” He then took one glassine from my hand.”

Published on: December 3, 2012

Court Discusses Lesser Included Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. He was convicted of the lesser included offense of breaking and entering or entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He appeals the judgment and sentence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man recognizes that the court, when confronted with such a verdict and judgment, remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment and sentence on the lesser of the included offenses referred to in the verdict. He requests that the Court reconsider such previous ruling. It has subsequently developed, however, that the District Court of Appeal has overruled and receded. Upon consideration of the opinion, the Court agrees with the general reasoning but go a step further. The Court of Appeal construes the crime of breaking and entering or entering without breaking as a single crime rather than two different crimes.

The information charged three elements including unlawful breaking, unlawful entry and the intent to commit petit larceny. The jury found the man guilty of two of the three elements set forth in the accusatory pleading by finding that he had made an unlawful entry with intent to commit petit larceny. These two elements constitute a crime just as surely as did the three elements charged. By all standards entering without breaking seems to meet the definition of a category necessarily included offense to breaking and entering.

Published on: December 3, 2012

Court Decides Assault Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Suffolk Drug Crime 11

In this case of the People of the State of New York verses the defendants Smithtown General Hospital, L.S., D.L, H.M, L.S., and M.C., are charged with allowing a prosthetic devices salesman to participate in a meaningful way during a surgical procedure that was being performed at the Smithtown General Hospital without the knowledge or consent of the patient. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Criminal Term, of Suffolk County Part II.

Case Background

Published on: December 2, 2012

Defendant Contends Court Lacks Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, appellant was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of West Palm Beach County for grand larceny. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, he was arraigned on the information and entered a plea of not guilty. At the beginning of the trial, which was held before the trial judge without a jury, the county solicitor made the announcement in open court and said that: ‘In this case, the State is going to attempt to prove petit larceny and not grand larceny.’ A West Palm Beach Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, after this announcement the county solicitor submitted evidence to prove that the charge contained in the information constituted petit larceny; and the trial court found the defendant to be guilty of petit larceny. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction was rendered and the defendant, as a result, appealed to this Court.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that, the Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal for a misdemeanor conviction. A West Palm Beach Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the defendant contends that inasmuch as the information upon which the defendant was arraigned charged a felony this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

The issue in this case is whether the appeal of the appellant should be dismissed on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal for a misdemeanor conviction.

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 29, 2012

Court Discusses the Elements 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).

a New York Criminal Lawyer said that 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: November 29, 2012

Court Decides if it Erred on Classifying Accused as a Level One Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

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. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she reported the incident to their mother and she reported the incident to the police.

Her 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. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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.

Published on: November 28, 2012

Court Decides Fourth Amendment Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 26, 2001, Detective McSherry, Sergeant MC and Police Officer F., assigned to anticrime patrol in an unmarked Chevrolet Blazer and traveling northbound on Valentine Avenue in Bronx, were stopped at a red light at the intersection of Valentine Avenue and 184th Street, a high crime area. The Chevrolet Blazer was the first in line at the red light. Detective MS and Sergeant MC, both in plain clothes, sat in the front of the vehicle. Sergeant MC was the driver. Officer F., in uniform, was a passenger in the rear of the vehicle.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, while they were stopped, Detective MS observed three young males, one of whom was appellant, crossing the street in front of their vehicle. MS testified that as the trio passed in front of the Blazer, they looked inside. One of the three “did a double take” and all of them “appeared to become startled.” Although the three males stayed together, their pace quickened. When they reached the other side of the street, walking southbound on the sidewalk, appellant separated from the group and, “walking closer to the building than the other two” “made a gesture like he’s putting something down by the building, by a doorway in the building which would lead to an alley.” As the detective explained, “He made a motion with his hand which looked to me he was casting something away, putting something down.” Appellant then joined the other two young men, who were walking southbound on Valentine Avenue.

The police vehicle then made a U-turn and pulled up alongside the three boys. Detective MS and Officer F. rolled down their windows “to gauge their reaction.” Appellant “turned, looked at their car, looked right at MS,” “panicked” and “took off running southbound on Valentine.” The other two young men remained standing where they were.

Published on: November 28, 2012

Court Contends Mental Hygiene Hearing was Unnecessary

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case for appeal being heard in the Third Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the State of New York. Mark S. is the appellant of the case and the State of New York is the respondent. Mark S. is appealing two orders that were made by the Supreme Court. The orders found the appellant to be to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to treatment in a secure facility.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant has an extensive criminal and psychiatric history that includes being convicted for two rapes and forcibly touching three different females. He was charged with third degree rape, third degree sodomy, and endangering the welfare of a child by having sexual relations with a girl who was less that 17 years old in June of 2003. The defendant states that the sex with the young girl was consensual and he thought that she was 17, even though he had been told that she was younger. He pled guilty to the third degree rape charge in May of 2004 to satisfy all of the charges that were made against him. He was sentenced to five months in jail and ten years of probation.

Published on: November 27, 2012

Court Discusses Concept of Double Jeopardy

by Stephen Bilkis

In April, 1973, as a result of a joint major Federal-State narcotics investigation, an indictment was filed against defendants #1, #2, and #3, along with 10 other large-scale heroin merchants, for conspiracy to violate Federal drug laws. To support the conspiracy count, covering a period from May, 1971 until the filing of the indictment, 10 particular incidents, including meetings and drug deliveries, were specified as overt acts. A number of substantive drug crimes of heroin possession were also charged.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the instant appeals arise out of a separate concurrent State prosecution in which the three defendants were charged with sale and heroin possession of dangerous drugs. The indictment states that on each of January 8, 12, and 22, 1973, Defendant #1, #2, and #3 possessed and sold over 16 ounces of heroin. These sales had neither been specified as overt acts of the Federal conspiracy nor had they been the subject of the substantive counts in that indictment.

The Federal charges were disposed of first. Defendant #1 and #3 pleaded guilty, among other counts, to conspiracy. Defendant #2 , on the other hand, went to trial and was found guilty on all counts charged. The evidence at that trial although not mentioned in the indictment included testimony concerning the three January drug sales that are the subject of the State prosecution. All three defendants received substantial Federal sentences.