New York

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defendant Charged with Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was standing in the corridor of a public housing project in Manhattan. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the housing projects are known to be a place frequented by drug dealers, drug addicts, those publicly drinking alcohol, trespassers and other persons engaged in criminal acts. Police officers have been assigned to conduct floor-by-floor patrols of the housing projects because of the prevalence of the crime in those areas.

On February 28, 2010, two veteran NYPD police officers made floor-by-floor patrol of a housing project in Manhattan. The police officers asked anyone they encounter in the housing projects their names, their addresses and even ask where they are going. When the police found persons in the corridors who are not tenants of the public housing apartment building they are patrolling, they ask for the persons reasons for being there. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they asked whether they are visiting, they asked the name and apartment number of the person they visited and they confirm with the tenant.

When the police officers encounter people who claim to be residents, they ask the people to prove their identity and prove their residence in the building by asking them for their key and asking for any identification that states their residence in the building.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defendant Charged with Predatory Sexual Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, there are many different levels of sex crime offenders. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said often the difference between the crimes are reduced to one or two words that are found in the different laws. In one case that occurred on May 2, 2011 and on May 14, 2011, the same offender was involved in both cases. On May 2, 2011, he was charged with sodomizing a young woman forcibly and against her will by forcing her to commit oral sex on him and then forced anal sex on her. On May 14, 2011, before he could be arrested on the first offense, he assaulted another woman. During this assault, he forcibly fondled the woman’s breasts and then raped her vaginally.

He was charged with Predatory Sexual Assault in both cases. However, his indictment passed down by the Grand Jury, only charged Predatory Sexual Assault in the case of the victim on May 14, 2011 and did not proceed on the charges of Predatory Sexual Assault in the case of the victim who was assaulted on May 2, 2011. The reason for this action, was that the charge of A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said predatory Sexual Assault requires that the action must have been taken on at least one prior occasion. In this case, a New York Criminal Lawyer the court determined that the more serious offense of Predatory Sexual Assault would only apply to the second offense with the first offense used to support the charge on the second victim. Predatory Sexual Assault is a more serious violation that is used to get serial sexual offenders off the streets longer than in the case of one time isolated incidents.

The defendant made a motion to the court to dismiss the charges in their entirety. He contends that since both cases were indicted at the same time, and the first offense was not indicted at all, that there is no precedent case to base the Predatory Sexual Assault charges on in the second offense. The prosecution contends that the Grand Jury heard the testimony in its entirety and determined that the indictment was prepared correctly. There is no wording in the legal statute that provides that the precedent case for Predatory Sexual Assault cannot be submitted at the same proceeding as the case that charges Predatory Sexual Assault. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defense does not agree.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Court Decides if Defendant is Eligible for Resentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 16 October 1994, defendant was arrested for selling $20 of cocaine to an undercover police officer. On 27 January 1997, he was convicted of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree (drug possession). He was sentenced as a Second Felony Offender to concurrent indeterminate prison sentences of 5 1/2 to 11 years. He was convicted in that case of. On 19 May 1999, defendant was released on parole.

Approximately 6 months later, he was arrested for another drug sale charge. On 4 August 2000, he pled guilty to Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a class C felony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he then apparently failed to appear in court for sentencing and a bench warrant for his appearance was issued on 28 February 2001. He was returned on that warrant a little more than two years later on 2 May 2003. He was sentenced upon that conviction on 12 June 2003 to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Teenager Charged with Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 23, 1990 a police detective was looking through a one-way mirror at the passengers lined-up waiting for a bus to go to Virginia. The detective noticed a girl who looked no more than 13 years old lined up all by herself without a parent or guardian travelling with her. The detective also noticed that she had a bulge underneath her zipped-up coat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said aware that some drug dealers used teenagers as drug mules to bring drugs across through state lines, and fearing that the teenager may be a runaway, the detective approached her and talked to her.

The detective sat behind her on the bus. The detective asked her first if she didn’t mind speaking to her and she assented. He asked her if she was travelling alone, how old she was and where she was headed. The girl confirmed that she was travelling alone and that she was on her way to visit family in Norfolk. She also claimed that she was 18 years old.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Defendant Claims Mental Illness as Defense to Sex Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

Issues that involve mentally ill suspects can be difficult to manage in the criminal justice system. Mentally ill suspects are a special population of offenders that do not fit squarely in the legislative intent in most cases. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a violent crime involves a person who is clearly mentally ill, the court must balance the rights of the victim’s family to see justice done with the ethical problem of managing an offender who may not be able to comprehend the trial process, his charges, or that what he did was wrong. There have been several laws throughout history that were designed to create a balance of determination where it regards mental competency to stand trial. The McNaughten Rule was the common choice for the last 100 years. The McNaughten Rule established that the offender had to know that what he had done was wrong.

In 1963, the New York Legislature passed document No. 8. On pages 18-19 of this docuent, the courts revised the McNaughten Rule’s theory of the offender knowing that what he did was wrong. The more modern view that encompasses the scientific knowledge of the day as it relates to mental illness, only requires that an offender has a substantial capacity to know or appreciate that what they have done is wrong. Some states include this wording in legal statutes that claim the person may be guilty, but still mentally ill. In states that have a guilty, but mentally ill statute, the person who is found guilty of the crime is sentenced to a mental institution until they are deemed cured, then they are transferred to a penitentiary where they will serve the remainder of their sentences. In 1970, this option was not available. One particularly heinous crime brought this legal problem to the forefront of public attention.

In 1970, a sixteen year old boy was working in a New York apartment building as a porter. One of his duties was to fix minor problems within the apartments. One day, a woman called in a problem with her blinds, the porter responded to fix them and entered her apartment. She was later found raped and brutally stabbed numerous times. The knife was left protruding from her buttocks when the offender left the scene. A New York Criminal Lawyer said before her body was found, the porter had shown up at the fire station next door to the apartment building with a severe cut on one of his hands. He told the firemen that he had cut his hand on some barbed wire. The firemen transported him to the hospital to receive stitches. The boy went home and told his mother that he had fallen on a bag that had glass in it and cut his hand. He was later arrested and told the police a different story about how he had cut his hand.

Published on: July 30, 2012

Attorney Disbarred for Criminal Offense

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with David A. Appell, who is an attorney and the respondent in the case. The petitioner in the matter is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is a disciplinary proceeding that has been instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

Case Background

Published on: July 30, 2012

Court Awards Partial Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this case are the Auto Collection Inc, et al. The defendants in the case are Christopher Pinkow, et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs, the Auto Collection Inc. is a corporation of New York and is licensed by the State of New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles to operate a car dealership. Auto Collection is in the retail business of selling cars. Steven and Joshua Lever are members of the Auto Collection. Autoland and LOV Motors, Inc. are exporters of cars and they purchase high end vehicles and other vehicles to sell to customers located in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. They have not been licensed by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Oleg Sakhontchik is a representative for LOV. Gleb Sakhontchik is a member of Autoland.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Defendant Contends Sentencing was Unconstitutional

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 15 December 1981, defendant was convicted of several drug crimes (which includes marijuana possession, heroin possession, etc.), viz: Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree and Criminal Use of Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree. Defendant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

The Issue:

Published on: July 29, 2012

Defendant Claims Mental Illness as a Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

Issues that involve mentally ill suspects can be difficult to manage in the criminal justice system. Mentally ill suspects are a special population of offenders that do not fit squarely in the legislative intent in most cases. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a violent crime involves a person who is clearly mentally ill, the court must balance the rights of the victim’s family to see justice done with the ethical problem of managing an offender who may not be able to comprehend the trial process, his charges, or that what he did was wrong. There have been several laws throughout history that were designed to create a balance of determination where it regards mental competency to stand trial. The McNaughten Rule was the common choice for the last 100 years. The McNaughten Rule established that the offender had to know that what he had done was wrong.

In 1963, the New York Legislature passed document No. 8. On pages 18-19 of this docuent, the courts revised the McNaughten Rule’s theory of the offender knowing that what he did was wrong. The more modern view that encompasses the scientific knowledge of the day as it relates to mental illness, only requires that an offender has a substantial capacity to know or appreciate that what they have done is wrong. A New York Criminal Lawyer said some states include this wording in legal statutes that claim the person may be guilty, but still mentally ill. In states that have a guilty, but mentally ill statute, the person who is found guilty of the crime is sentenced to a mental institution until they are deemed cured, then they are transferred to a penitentiary where they will serve the remainder of their sentences. In 1970, this option was not available. One particularly heinous crime brought this legal problem to the forefront of public attention.

In 1970, a sixteen year old boy was working in a New York apartment building as a porter. One of his duties was to fix minor problems within the apartments. One day, a woman called in a problem with her blinds, the porter responded to fix them and entered her apartment. She was later found raped and brutally stabbed numerous times. The knife was left protruding from her buttocks when the offender left the scene. Before her body was found, the porter had shown up at the fire station next door to the apartment building with a severe cut on one of his hands. He told the firemen that he had cut his hand on some barbed wire. The firemen transported him to the hospital to receive stitches. The boy went home and told his mother that he had fallen on a bag that had glass in it and cut his hand. He was later arrested and told the police a different story about how he had cut his hand.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Court Looks at Sentencing in Violent vs. Nonviolent Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant is charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of § 220.39(1) of the Penal Law, committed on 18 October 1973, and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of § 220.16(1) of the Penal Law, committed on 23 October 1973. The narcotic drug involved in each instance was heroin; heroin sale and heroin possession.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that under the revised drug laws which became effective on 1 September 1973, each of the crimes charged is classified as an A–III felony, punishable by an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum period of which, for a first offender, is from one to eight and one-third years, and the maximum of which is life imprisonment.