Sex Crimes

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Discusses Waiver of Right to Appeal

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard before the Supreme Court, Appellant Division, Second Department of the State of New York. The respondent in this matter is the People of the State of New York. Jay Jomar Bradshaw is the appellant of the case.

The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Kings County Supreme Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the judgment convicted him of rape in the first degree after he pleaded guilty to the crime. The appeal will review the denial of the charges after a hearing for suppression of identification.

Case Background

Published on: August 14, 2012

Defendant Claims Ineffective Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Floyd F. The Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County is hearing this case. The defendant has motioned to have his plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree vacated. The plea was taken on the 10th of November, 1994 and he was convicted for the crime on the 12th of January, 1995.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant is requesting that the judgment against him be vacated based upon ineffective counsel and because the plea was entered without him fully understanding what it met. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant argues that when he entered the plea of guilty he was not informed by his attorney of the potential immigration consequences. He states that if he had known about these consequences he would have chosen to not enter the plea and would have gone to trial instead.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Court Finds Issues with Search

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case before the Justice Court of the City of New York in Nassau County. The defendants in this matter are Juana and Jose Ventura. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said there was reason to believe that the defendants were living in a home that was over occupied. An affidavit was submitted to support the warrant. In the affidavit it was shown that there was reason to believe that up to 25 people were currently living in different areas of the premises. This is a violation of the rental code and there had been several complaints regarding the premises.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Defendant Requests Disclosure of Exculpatory Materials

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is Michael Brown. He has made an omnibus motion requesting several forms of relief. The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The County Court of the City of New York in Suffolk County is hearing the case.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s omnibus motion has requested discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20. The People have answered that they have provided their entire discovery to the defense. The defendant has not submitted a reply to contest the sufficiency of the answer that was provided by the People. For this reason, it seems that the request has been complied with.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Defendant Appeals a Ruling for Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

Bronx County Rape 7

Alberto Ramos is the appellant and respondent of this particular case. The respondent and appellant of the matter is the City of New York.

Case Background

Published on: August 12, 2012

Court Hears Drug Fraud Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent and defendant in this case is J. Milford Kirkup Jr. The People of the State of New York are the appellants in the case. The Court of Appeals in the state of New York is hearing this case. There were two indictments filed against the defendant, Kirkup, in the Extraordinary Special and the Trial Terms of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Indictment 7256 charged the defendant with committing the crime of conspiracy. Indictment 7258 charges the defendant of violating section 1864 of the Penal Law.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People of the State of New York submitted evidence to the Grand Jury that showed that Albert Freistadt, who is a pharmacist that operates a small retail drug store in Suffolk County along with his successors in interest had ordered drugs from pharmaceutical houses solely for the use of the Suffolk County Home, but in actuality for selling to the public.

Published on: August 12, 2012

Defendant Claims Entrapment

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal by the defendant Jesus Torres. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The judgment was rendered on the 19th, 1989 and convicted him of the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

Case Background

In 1985, the defendant, Jesus Torres, and his business partner ran a successful roofing business in Suffolk County. They had the business for several years. For several years the defendant, his wife, his business partner, and several of their mutual friends were weekend cocaine users. The defendant used one gram of cocaine a week and this was supplied to him by his business partner.

Published on: August 12, 2012

Court Determines if Delay between Incident and Arrest was Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case, Richard Connor, is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The judgment convicted the appellant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The appeal brings up issues of denial of the defendant’s omnibus motion that was to dismiss the indictment and to suppress identification testimony. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Case Background

In June of 1984, in response to numerous complaints made by residents in the Wyandanch, Long Island, area that the community was becoming an open drug market, an undercover operation was conducted by the Suffolk County Police.

Published on: August 12, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

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

The defendant has an extensive criminal and psychiatric history that includes being convicted for two rapes and forcibly touching three different females. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said 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: August 11, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Kenneth Murray. The defendant has been accused of acting in concert with another in commission of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said Murray has moved for the charges against him to be dismissed on the account that the indictment is defective and that it was not found on legally sufficient evidence.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant argues that the indictment is deficient as it fails to conform to CPL section 200.30, subdivision 7. This section requires that a plain and concise factual statement of each count must be made. It further states that the defendant must be clearly apprised as to the matter of the accusation that is made against him.