Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

On 29 November 2006, the County Court of Suffolk County rendered judgment convicting a certain defendant of rape in the second degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty.

On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the County Court. Domestic violence was not charged and a drug was not found.

Here, the County Criminal Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. As a rule, a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, whose determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion. This is clearly stated in CPL 220.60[3]; and is the court’s ruling in the cases of People v. Seeber, People v. Villalobos, People v. Hines, People v. Massey, People v. Torres, and People v. DeLeon. Based on the records of the case, there was sufficient evidence to support the County Court’s determination that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Moreover, the defendant entered his negotiated plea of guilty with the assistance of competent counsel, in exchange of a very favorable sentence promise. What’s more, the defendant’s unsubstantiated claim of dissatisfaction with the representation of his attorney was refuted by his statements during the plea allocution.

Continue reading

In this Sex Crime case, Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the second degree as the result of his admitted sexual conduct with a 14-year-old girl. He was sentenced to a term of incarceration and, upon his anticipated release, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) prepared a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI).

Based upon the total risk factor score of 85 on the RAI, defendant was presumptively classified as a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). All of the points were assessed under the category of “CURRENT OFFENSE(S)” and included 25 points under risk factor 2, “Sexual Contact with Victim,” 20 points under risk factor 4, “Duration of Offense Conduct with Victim,” 20 points under risk factor 5, “Age of Victim,” and 20 points under risk factor 7, “Relationship Between Offender and Victim.” The Board did not find that any overrides were applicable, nor did it recommend a departure from defendant’s presumptive level two classification.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that, at the SORA hearing, the People agreed with the Board’s assessment and asked County Court to determine that defendant is a level two risk. Defendant, however, challenged the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 7, “Relationship Between Offender and Victim,” on the ground that his relationship with the victim was not that of a stranger or established for purpose of victimizing or professional relationship,” as set forth in the RAI. In its case summary, the Board indicated that points were assessed under that risk factor because the victim was defendant’s foster child and the offense arose from the “abuse of a professional relationship.”

Continue reading

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding involving eight separate information charging the separately named defendants with a violation of Section 722-b of the Penal Law of the State of New York. Section 722-b reads as follows: § 722-b. Loitering in school buildings. ‘Any person not the parent or legal guardian of a pupil in regular attendance at said school who loiters in or about any school building or grounds without written permission from the principal, custodian or other person in charge thereof, or in violation of posted rules or regulations governing the use thereof, shall be guilty of disorderly conduct.’.

A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, on September 21, 1960 defendants and the six additional named defendants, together with others, entered upon the property of the a certain Elementary School in the City of New Rochelle, New York. None of the defendants was a parent or legal guardian of a pupil in regular attendance at the school and none of the defendants had written permission from the Principal, Custodian or other person in charge thereof. The eight defendants were accompanied by a group of children. With the exception of the first defendant, all of the remaining seven defendants were parents of one or more children in the group. Thus, the only factual distinction between the defendant case and the second case is that it is conceded on the record that defendant did not have a child in the group at the School, and that as a matter of fact, defendant’s child was regularly enrolled at the Mayflower Elementary School in the City of New Rochelle, New York, and was in fact in attendance at the said Mayflower Elementary School at the time of the acts set forth in the information. There was no robbery or DWI in this case.

The City of New Rochelle is divided into twelve elementary school districts. The Board of Education of the City of New Rochelle has assigned to each of these districts a specially designated geographical area and children in the City wishing to attend elementary schools (kindergarten through sixth grade) are required to attend the elementary school to which their residential district has been assigned. The Superintendent of Schools testified the children are not permitted to attend elementary schools outside of their designated residential districts. The Superintendent further testified that the City contains two junior high schools, whose districts are also designated by the Board of Education, and that at the completion of the sixth grade of instruction at an appropriate elementary school a pupil is assigned to one of the two junior high schools, depending upon the residence of the pupil. The City School District operates a single senior high school (grades ten through twelve) which operates on a city-wide basis.

Continue reading

In this Sex Crime, following a March 1983 incident in which he violently assaulted a neighbor, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of sex abuse in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree, in satisfaction of all charges. He was sentenced to 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment on each criminal count, to run concurrently.

In February 1987, while on parole supervision, Appellant attacked and stabbed an acquaintance in her home. He pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree, in full satisfaction of an indictment that included first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy counts. He was sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

According to a Nassau Sex Crimes lawyer, when Appellant was released in 2002, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (the Board) determined that he was required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), citing his 1983 sex abuse conviction. The Board calculated a total risk assessment score of 80 points, on the basis of the 1983 incident, making Appellant presumptively a level two (moderate risk) offender. The Board however recommended an upward departure to level three, because of “the brutal sexual and physical assault” Appellant committed in 1987. He filed an objection to the Board’s recommended SORA assessment level, arguing, among other things, that SORA does not apply to him because his sentence for the sexual abuse conviction “was due to expire” before SORA became effective in 1996.

Continue reading

In this case, the complainant is a six years old boy and his opponent is a twelve years old boy, whom were alleged to have been caught in a sex act.

The twelve years old boy was born by a cocaine-addicted mother and subsequently adopted by a couple days after his birth. The boy has special needs and since birth he experienced both developmental and medical difficulties. Since infancy, the boy received physical, occupational, speech, feeding, and vision therapies. He also suffers from decreased muscle tone and chronic constipation. He has been classified by his local school district as multiply disabled and attends an integrated educational program which includes speech, therapy and counseling. The boy has an I.Q. of 69, which places him in the mildly retarded range of intellectual functioning. No criminal charges were made for drug possession.

Afterward, the court ordered an out-patient evaluation of the twelve years old boy to determine whether he is an incapacitated person within the meaning of the law. The boy was then evaluated by two court appointed mental health professionals. Their reports were submitted to the court. The reports explained that the boy was an incapacitated person stemming from cognitive difficulties, and lack the capacity to understand legal proceedings. It was further indicated in the reports that treatment would not improve the boy’s ability to comprehend his legal situation. Robbery was not an issue nor was burglary.

Continue reading

A Nassau Sex Crime Lawyer said that, the petitioners had moved by order to show cause for a court order permitting petitioners to serve and file a notice of claim using pseudonyms to conceal the identity of the infant petitioners who are alleged victims of sex crimes. At this juncture, the actions have not been commenced since pleadings were not filed and served, and issue has not been joined. On the return date of the applications, the parties named in the captions of the notice of claims stipulated that petitioners are permitted to serve and file a notice of claim in the names of “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” and “John Doe 3” as pseudonyms to protect the identity of the infant petitioners in the above-entitled actions.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, the respondent, cross-moved to seal the entire court record in the impending actions, and a news company has moved to intervene in opposition to respondent’s motion for a sealing order. The petitioners have submitted papers opposing the sealing of the entire court record in the interest of the public. As an alternative, counsel for “John Doe 1 and 2” requests in his opposition papers that “the court order that all documents filed with this court be redacted to the extent necessary to preserve the identity of the infant claimants and their families.”

The issue in this case is whether respondent motion for the sealing of the entire court record should be granted. A drug charge was not made nor was there any burglary.

Continue reading

In this Child Neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act (“FCA”), Petitioner Department of Social Services brought a Petition in December 2010 charging that the Respondent had failed to properly care for or supervise his four year old son. The subject child was placed with Respondent pursuant to FCA § 1055 and, until late October, 2010, resided with Respondent at his home in Mount Vernon, New York.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, the fulcrum of the Petition is an incident that took place at Respondent’s Mount Vernon apartment during the evening of October 29, 2010. The subject child was then residing with Respondent in that apartment. According to the Petition, on the afternoon of October 29 Respondent was observed to be intoxicated to the point of impairment when he arrived to pick the subject child up from school, such that “his speech was slurred and he was stumbling.” That evening, the DSS Emergency Services Unit responded to Respondent’s home; he refused to allow them to enter. Subsequently, the Mount Vernon Police forced entry into the apartment for domestic violence. Once inside, DSS found the child to be safe, but discovered a baseball bat and knife with a “10 inch blade” underneath a bed, and “readily accessible to the four year old subject child.” In addition, as soon as DSS had an opportunity to carefully observe the child, DSS workers allegedly observed a discoloration under one of his eyes which, according to Joshua, had been caused when his father struck him when he dropped a toy. Immediately following the October 29 incident, the child was removed from Respondent’s care and placed with a foster family.

A Nassau Sex Crime Lawyer said that, respondent entered a general denial to the allegations of the Petition, and a fact finding hearing was commenced on February 4, 2011 and continued intermittently for several days thereafter until May 7, 2011. Petitioner called several witnesses, including the DSS Emergency Services workers who arrived at Respondent’s apartment on October 29; a DSS Child Protective Services worker who spoke to and observed the child shortly after the October 29 incident; and the child’s teacher, who testified as to Respondent’s conduct and apparent condition when he picked the child up from school on the afternoon of October 29. Petitioner also adduced documentary evidence including photographs of the subject child allegedly depicting an injury to his eye, and an indicated report describing Respondent’s behavior during the afternoon of October 29. That report, when received by DSS, prompted their visit to Respondent’s home that evening. Respondent testified on his own behalf. In essence, he denied any intoxication or that he had struck his son; Respondent did concede, however, that he failed to provide DSS with access to his apartment, but sought to justify his conduct on the grounds of an overarching concern for his and the child’s personal safety.

Continue reading

The defendant father was indicted in 1994 in a twenty-eight count indictment charging that he engaged in sexual relations with his 15 year old daughter, during a three month period. He entered into a negotiated Alford-Serrano plea to one count of rape in the third degree with the assistant district attorney, with the knowledge and consent of the victim’s mother. The court in view of the representations of the prosecutor, and the defense along with the victim’s mother, accepted the plea bargain based on the fact that the victim was of limited intelligence and would be unduly traumatized by testifying in court against her father. While the father maintained his innocence he claimed that a jury might convict him of rape in the first degree rather than the statutory rape charge to which he pled. These are sex crimes.

The defendant father argues that since he took an Alford-Serrano plea, whereby he maintained his innocence, yet acknowledged that the prosecutor may have been able to obtain a conviction, it should not be used against him in calculating his classification as a sex offender.

After the plea, the assistant district attorney moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law that the defendant submit to a human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”) test. Attached to the motion was an application for HIV testing signed by the allege victim. The defendant father steadfastly refused to take the HIV test on the ground that he still maintains his innocence and no proof otherwise was ever presented to the court. He also argues that the disclosure of a positive test result if it occurred would harm his reputation in the community since the victim’s family has in the past proliferated defamatory written materials attacking him and his employer.

On 1 December 1983, the County Court of Suffolk County rendered judgment convicting a certain defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and attempted rape in the second degree, after a nonjury trial. Criminal sex crimes.

On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the County Court’s decision.

Here, the proof adduced at trial established beyond a reasonable doubt that on 4 May 1982, at approximately 7:30 A.M., the defendant, who was well known to the 11-year-old victim, went into the victim’s bedroom, hit her with a belt and attempted to rape her. The defendant wiped his penis on the victim’s jeans. The victim’s testimony describing this incident was independently corroborated by her mother’s testimony that the defendant was the only adult in the house the morning of the incident, as well as by the testimony of her two brothers who saw the defendant go into the victim’s bedroom that morning with a belt and heard her crying from behind closed doors. What’s more, the Deputy Director of the Suffolk County crime laboratory testified that he analyzed the stains found on the child’s jeans and panties as well as samples of the defendant’s blood and saliva and the tests revealed that the same enzymes were present. The expert offered the opinion that the enzymes found in the panties stain matched only 3.8% of the population, while those found in the jeans stain matched only 8.6% of the population. This is domestic violence.

Continue reading

Defendant appeals from the judgment rendered on 3 May 1989 of the County Court, Nassau County convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and use of a child in a sex performance, upon his plea of guilty and sentencing him to four concurrent indeterminate terms of 2 years imprisonment.

AF is a retired high school teacher. He was under arrest in 1987 on Federal criminal charges for using the mails to send and receive child pornography. A subsequent investigation disclosed that AF ran an after-school computer program in his Great Neck home. AF’s son, JF, had been sexually abusing the young boys who had been regularly attending the computer classes. AF was arrested on State charges with respect to the sexual abuse crimes, and upon his guilty plea, was sentenced, inter alia, to 8 1/3 to 25 years imprisonment in addition to his sentence on the Federal charges. In connection with the investigation of the AF and JF, police were led to the defendant, a friend of JF, who had also sexually abused some of the boys who had been attending the computer classes. The defendant, who was 15 and 16 years old when he committed the crimes, became repulsed by them, and six months before the AF and JF were arrested, the defendant disassociated himself from JF and his activities. Following the defendant’s indictment for a number of sex crimes, including class B violent felonies, the prosecution, with the approval of the victims’ families, approached the defendant’s counsel and sought the defendant’s assistance in strengthening the case against JF and in providing information concerning two other individuals suspected of being involved in the crimes. Domestic Violence could be involved.

The defendant agreed to cooperate on 8 September 1988. The terms and agreement between the defendant and the prosecution were placed on the record. In exchange for defendant’s testimony, it would recommend to the sentencing court that defendant will receive a sentence no more than six months in jail, youthful offender status, probation and any and all therapy contingent upon that probation which the probation department deems is necessary. There was not a drug charge made.

Continue reading