New York

Published on: February 9, 2013

Defendant Claims Evidence Does Not Support Possession Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant was convicted by a jury on the charges of possession of marijuana possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The appellant is appealing the convictions on two grounds. First, he states that the evidence in the case is insufficient for the conviction. Second, he argues that the district court made an error by allowing certain past marijuana dealings involving his brothers be introduced as evidence.

Case Facts

The appellant rant a service station. According to a co-conspirator the appellant told him to load almost 2000 pounds of marijuana. The marijuana was owned by the appellant’s brother. The contraband was in burlap sacks and was stored along with the truck that it was to be loaded onto in a shed about 20 miles from the station.

Published on: February 9, 2013

Evidence for Conspiracy to Possess Marijuana is Insufficient, According to Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

The first appellant in this case was convicted for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine. The second appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The third appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. This is a consolidated appeal by all of the appellants.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the first appellant argues that the evidence against him for the conspiracy charge is insufficient. The second appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient for the charge of conspiracy of possession of marijuana. He also is challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion for severance. The third appellant also argues that the evidence against him is insufficient for the charge of conspiracy of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute.

Case Facts

Published on: February 8, 2013

Court Discusses Drunkeness by Drug Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The main issue in this case is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to show marijuana possession by the defendant. The defendant has been found guilty on the charge of possession of marijuana in court without a jury.

Case Background

The testimony from the case shows that the defendant was observed by two police officers leaning out of a parked car in a residential area. The officers came over to the car to investigate and questioned him. The defendant supplied answers that were incoherent and confused. The physical appearance of the defendant was disheveled.

Published on: February 8, 2013

Immigration Issues Complicate a Drug Possession Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is 39 and a citizen of Italy. He is currently living in Florida. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service has moved to have him deported to Italy on the ground that he has overstayed his six month visa that was granted to him when he entered the United States and that he has been convicted of possession of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has applied for readjustment. The Immigration Court denied the application for readjustment and upheld the ground for deportation.

Case Background

The defendant left Italy in 1956 and lived in Scotland for a while and then in the Bahamas. He was arrested for marijuana possession while living in the Bahamas. He paid a fine of $600 instead of serving the 120 sentence.

Published on: February 8, 2013

Defendant Contends that Initial Police Stop was Pre-Textual

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is challenging a judgment and sentence that she received for trafficking methamphetamines, a felony marijuana possession of drug paraphernalia. She was charged with carrying a concealed weapon as well. In support of her challenge the defendant states that the court made a mistake by not allowing her motion to suppress that alleged the vehicle stop was pre-textual. She also states that the evidence presented in the case is insufficient to support her convictions.

Case Background

The defendant started a romantic relationship with a gentleman in January of 1994. The gentleman always had a large amount of money and access to drugs. While they were dating he would supply the defendant with cash, methamphetamines, and take her on trips. In March of 1994, he came to her home and asked her if she wanted to go on a trip. She agreed, but stated that she did not have any luggage. He told her that she could pack her stuff in one of his bags. She carried a small bag with her in which she had a small amount of marijuana.

Published on: February 7, 2013

Defendant Appeals Sentence of Intent to Distribute Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing the 97 month sentence that has been opposed upon him for his guilty plea to the charges of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (marijuana possession).

Case Background

The defendant agreed that he participated in a conspiracy to acquire and distribute quantities of marijuana. He also agree that he along with the two co-defendants provided marijuana to others during a two year time frame. The defendant also agreed that he along with his co-defendants delivered over 100 kilograms to another individual and the marijuana would be stored at that residence and the individual would distribute it.

Published on: February 6, 2013

Court Determines Insufficient Evidence Against Defendant in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Background

Local police officers executed a search warrant at a home and when they did they found the appellant along with two other young men inside the home. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was detained in the living room with the other two men while the search was conducted. The officers found three kinds of controlled substances in the bedroom. There was also marijuana found under the kitchen sink.

The appellant was the only person that was prosecuted as a result of the search. He was charged with possession of all of the drugs that had been found in the bedroom. He was charged with possession of cocaine, marijuana possession, and possession of barbiturates.

Published on: February 6, 2013

Defendant Requests Motion for Mistrial Based on Government Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and marijuana possession. The defendant argues that the evidence in the case is insufficient to support the charges against him and that the trial court made a mistake when they denied his motion for a mistrial based on the evidence of government misconduct.

Case Background

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said this case comes from a reverse buy sting operation. The defendant asked an acquaintance of his to broker a marijuana deal. The defendant had several prospective buyers and the friend had connections. One of the connections happened to be an informant. The friend contacted the informant to set up a transaction and a meeting was arranged between the informant, the friend, and the defendant.

Published on: February 5, 2013

Court Sentences Defendant to Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with several counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument, grand larceny and scheme to defraud. The parties to the case put in issue the eligibility of the accused for judicial diversion. The defendant argued that he is entitled for the judicial diversion program since he was indicted with crime of grand larceny where such offense is included in the list for the statute to be eligible for such program and none of the other crimes he was charged were considered exclusions to the said program. The respondent questioned the felon’s eligibility because only one of the several counts of charges filed against him rendered him eligible for the judicial diversion.

The statute listed down the specific exceptions to being an “eligible defendant,” to wit, “any defendant convicted of a violent felony offense, any other offense for which a merit time allowance is not available, or a class A drug felony within the preceding ten years. Also listed as an exception is that any defendant who has previously been adjudicated a second violent felony offender or a persistent violent offender.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said such exclusions to warrant denial of being eligible for judicial diversion were not applicable to the case of the accused.

Considering that the simple and clear language of the law lead to the conclusion by the Court that the defendant was not caused to be ineligible for the program simply because he was charged with other offenses in the indictment, which was not listed in the statute entitled to the judicial diversion. Although the statutory act sets forth particular circumstances that would make a person ineligible, it failed to indicate that the charges against the defendant are mutually exclusive with the qualifying offenses or the inclusion of non-qualifying offenses in the indictment would subject the accused to ineligibility.

Published on: February 4, 2013

Defendant Charged with Aiding and Abetting Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused man along with a co-accused was convicted of robbery in the first degree. He and his co-accused had been charged with aiding and abetting the actual perpetrator; and the sole evidence linking the accused to the robbery was his own admissions. The evidence was insufficient to establish the accused man’s guilt of robbery as a principal.

The accused man’s admissions established only that he had given a gun to his co-accused who, in the accused man’s presence, then turned it over to their actual perpetrator man, whom they knew was going to use it in a robbery; and that after the robbery, and an ensuing homicide in which a police officer was killed, the accused cut his actual perpetrator’s hair in an effort to help him evade capture. It is indisputable that the accused was never present during the actual commission of the robbery and it is not claimed that he ever shared in the robbery proceeds.

Clearly, the accused did intentionally render assistance to the actual perpetrator. However, to be criminally liable for the robbery itself, he must also be shown to have shared the same specific intent or mental culpability as the actual perpetrator, and this was not done. The transfer of the weapon to the actual perpetrator, without more, is at best equivocal; and the subsequent cutting of the actual perpetrator’s hair is of little or no probative value, since it was the intervening killing of a police officer and not the robbery which obviously gave rise to the extensive manhunt. In other words, while the accused may be guilty of other crimes, such as criminal facilitation and hindering prosecution, the circumstantial evidence was not at all inconsistent with his innocence of the crime of robbery itself.