Sex Crimes

Published on: May 3, 2012

Court Discusses Discrimination of Domestic Violence Victims

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant woman was hired by the City Department of Correction and was subject to a two-year probation period. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she is the mother of two pre-teenage children and a victim of abuse by her crack and alcohol addict husband who also happens to have a criminal history. The woman moved out with her children and went to live with a relative. Things did not work out and she was ejected from the apartment. The woman requested a vacation time to find a home and was granted a leave through April 4, 2002.

On April 5, 2002, the still homeless woman asked the Department’s Health Management Division (HMD) for further time off to continue her search for a place to live. The Health Management Division put her on immediate sick leave due to stress. They also confiscated the woman’s identification and directed her to obtain a new one which reflected she was psychologically unfit to carry a firearm. At that same meeting, the Health Management Division demanded that the woman provide them with an address. When the woman told the Health Management Division that she was homeless and lacked an address, she was told she could not work at the Department without one. Faced with the threat even after she had explained her homelessness, she gave her husband’s address.

The Health Management Division conducted a visit to the woman at her husband’s address. When she was not found there, they required her to appear at the Health Management Division the following day to explain her unauthorized absence from home. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman was informed by her mother-in-law the woman appeared at the Health Management Division and at their request wrote a report explaining her circumstances and homelessness. Nonetheless, the Health Management Division made four subsequent visits to the husband’s residence expecting to find the petitioner there. The petitioner remained homeless, sleeping variously in her car, hotels, shelters or friends’ homes. The woman did return to her husband’s home twice, but both times he assaulted her and she had to seek police intervention and leave again.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Defendant Contends He was Improperly Interrogated

by Stephen Bilkis

A man, in possession of a gun, accosted a registered nurse who was on her way home from working at a hospital. He assaulted the nurse who was severely injured. Seven months later, the man committed a similar crime but in the territorial jurisdiction of Queens County. In relation to the second assault he committed in Queens, the police arrested him.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the arrest was effected while the man was in the apartment of his girlfriend. When the police arrested him, the man was handcuffed and was escorted from the building. While they were escorting him, the man and his girlfriend had a conversation. The girlfriend said that she could call an attorney for her boyfriend. The boyfriend agreed and gave his girlfriend a specific instruction to call his lawyer.

When the police reached the car, they read the man the Miranda warnings. The police detective asked the man if he understood his rights and he declared that he understood them. The police detective then asked if he was willing to talk to the detective even without his lawyer. The man agreed.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Alleged Shoplifting Defendant Claims False Imprisonment

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs and appellee in the case is Virdie L. Smith et al. The defendants and appellants of the case are the Brookshire Brothers Inc. et al. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

The Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the original case, Donnie McClure and Virdie L. Smith sought damages against the Brookshire Brothers Inc, Kenneth Sandel and Glen Nevill. The reason for the case was malicious prosecution, civil rights violations, and false imprisonment. This particular suit was started because of the actions taken be Brookshire Brothers employees who took action against the appellee suspecting them of being shoplifters. In the original trial court damages were awarded to the plaintiffs and the defendants are appealing this verdict.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Defendant Contends Evidence of Criminal History Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee of the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Douglas Dedeker. The case is being heard in the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Case History

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 1990, Douglas Dedeker, the appellant was convicted of helping a federal prisoner escape in the state of Colorado. After the appellant admitted to helping the individual and negotiated his plea of guilty, he was then interviewed by a probation officer who was in charge of preparing his presentencing report. During the meeting with the probation officer the defendant stated that he had not been found guilty of a crime since his initial release in July of 1988. However, the probation officer determined that he had been recently convicted on a shoplifting offense. For this offense he received a 30 day suspension sentence and a $300 fine. At this conviction Dedeker was not represented by a lawyer and received a fine and a suspended sentencing.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Court Rules on Divorce Based on Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

On 21 May 2002, plaintiff commenced the action. The parties were married on 24 January 1992, in Brooklyn, New York. The husband is 37 years of age and the wife is 46 years of age. The parties have two (2) children, a son born on 31 March 1988, and a daughter born on 27 September 1995. The husband is a business and property owner. The wife is a homemaker and factory worker.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the parties were born in the Country of Ecuador and knew each other in Ecuador prior to coming to the United States. The wife was previously married to the husband’s cousin who subsequently died. It is undisputed that the husband also knew the wife’s two (2) brothers who were the subject of testimony in the instant matter.

When the wife immigrated to the United States in 1987, she did so without permission to permanently reside in the United States and was in the company of her now deceased husband. It appears that the husband and wife herein and the wife’s husband at that time, moved into a two-bedroom apartment which was also occupied by other individuals from Ecuador.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Throwing Out Assault Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted for assault in the first degree and for criminal possession of a loaded firearm as a felony. The man was accused of having assaulted another man by aiming and discharging a loaded pistol at him, with an intent to kill the other individual. At the close of the case, the counsel of the man requested the trial court to charge the jury with respect to assault in the second and third degrees, in addition to assault in the first degree. The court denied the request as it was to charge assault in the third degree. The jury found that the man is guilty of the gun crime and of assault in the second degree.

The court agrees in affirmation as to the conviction for possession of the firearm, but opposes and votes to reverse the judgment insofar. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the judge giving the opinion that, under the circumstances of the case, the trial court committed reversible error in refusing the man’s request to charge assault in the third degree. The evidence tends to establish that the man and the victim of the assault, together with several other companions, who had been drinking in a bar for several hours prior to the incident. When the abovementioned bar closed for the night, the group proceeded across the street and commenced horsing around. The victim testified that he was pretty high at the time of the incident. The behavior engaged in were variously described as kidding around, carrying on, wrestling and grabbing each other, and rolling on the ground. There came a time when the man allegedly drew a pistol and fired it, wounding the victim. The record is barren of evidence which would tend to establish a motive or provocation for the assault. The testimony of the victim, his brother and several other companions is to the consequence that the man drew a pistol, aimed it at the victim and fired. The description of the assault by one of the companions differs materially from that of the others. One of the companions described the incident and stated that they were over there singing and cracking jokes when the man came and said a few words before the gun went off. The gun went off coming out from the man’s pocket. The witness further said that he had just seen the fire and he didn’t see the gun. Therefore, there can be no assurance for assault in the second degree because of the absent proof of the requisite intent. Although the testimony of the victim and the others, excluding one, is sufficient to support a conviction for assault in the second degree, the other companion’s testimony tends to establish that the gun went off accidentally as the man withdrew it from his pocket. The said testimony, coupled with the evidence that the group was intoxicated and the absence of evidence showing motive for the assault, would tend to negate the presence of the required intent. Under the said circumstances, the trial court should have charged the jury with respect to assault in the third degree, which requires no specific intent.

Based on records, it has been repeatedly written that if, upon any view of the facts, an offender could properly be found guilty of a lesser degree or an included crime then the trial judge must submit such lower offense. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer does not matter how strongly the evidence points to guilt of the crime charged in the condemnation, or how unreasonable it would be, as a court may appraise the weight of the evidence, to find not guilty of that crime and convict of the less serious crime.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Reviews Search and Seisure Proceedures in Possible Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The village police received a 911 call from a teenager asking for assistance because he thought his mother had died. A police officer was dispatched to the home of the teenager and he arrived at 9:30am. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teen-aged boy let the police officer in and brought him to his mother’s bedroom where he found the mother lying in a pool of her own blood. After the police officer was sure that the mother had no pulse, the police officer called for the detectives of the police department. The police officer also called the dead woman’s husband at his dental clinic.

Other police officers arrived at 10am. The police detectives arrived at 10.40 am and the medical examiners came at 11:25am. The husband of the dead woman, the dentist came home at 12 noon.

When the dentist arrived the police detective asked him questions. He was asked if he had any guns in the house and the dentist said no. He said he had not fired a gun since 1954 when he was in the armed forces.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Indeterminate Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, prior to January 13, 2005, it was common for people convicted of Class B felony drug crimes to be incarcerated with indeterminate sentences. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trend at the time was to be tough on drug offenders by putting them in prison with no expectation of a final release date. In January of 2005, new trends and research into the problems presented by indeterminate sentences, caused New York lawmakers to rethink their policy. Class B felony drug crime offenders stopped getting indeterminate sentences. Since, the prisons were overrun with Class B felony drug crime offenders who had indeterminate sentences, CPL 440.46 was created to alleviate the problem. It states that any person who has been convicted of a Class B felony drug crime under article 220 of the Penal Law that was committed before January 13, 2005 might be eligible for resentencing under the new sentencing guidelines that did not include indeterminate sentences. They must have a maximum of more than three years to be eligible. The intent originally was to reduce the number of drug offenders on the streets. The problem with indeterminate sentences is that offenders behave worse when they do not have the hope of a definite end. The large number of drug offenders that were incarcerated was putting a strain on the system and taking space that was needed to house violent offenders. Sometimes, political notions of how to combat crime cause more problems than they solve. Indeterminate sentencing was one of those notions. The sentences were so severe that they were out of sync with the rest of the sentencing guidelines for other offences. Often, drug offenders received harsher sentences than violent offenders. There were other problems with the idea of indeterminate sentences that must be addressed by the New York legal system. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said one way is to go back through all of the cases where offenders are facing more than three years of an indeterminate sentence, and allow them to apply for resentencing under the new guidelines. In most cases, approval for resentencing means release into a drug treatment program and probation. There are exceptions to these resentencing guidelines. If a person was convicted in the ten years preceding this conviction with any violent felony offense described in section 70.02 of the penal law or any offense for which a merit time allowance is not available, then they are not eligible for resentencing under the new guidelines.

This ten-year period is figured from the date of the person’s resentencing motion and not from the date that he committed the present drug crime. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in one case, a man applied for resentencing under the new guidelines in October 2009. He had been convicted in March of 1984 for manslaughter in the first degree. Manslaughter in the first degree is a class B violent felony, which would otherwise make him ineligible for resentencing. He was also convicted in July of 1995 with manslaughter in the second degree which is an offense in which merit time allowance is not allowed. However, because both of these convictions occurred prior to the ten-year period from 2009, they do not disqualify him from resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. Under the ten-year look back policy, this offender’s history before 1999 cannot be considered in order to disqualify him from obtaining resentencing to remove his indeterminate sentence. Additionally, he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence that would last more than three years which does qualify him for resentencing under the new guidelines. This matter was remitted back to Queens County Supreme Court for new proceedings and a new determination of the motion. This means that the inmate will qualify for resentencing that will put his sentence in line with the sentences that drug crime offenders are presently getting.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said there are mixed arguments about resentencing drug offenders, but there is simply not enough room in the prisons to house everyone who has been convicted of a drug offense. It is important that the people who have been arrested for drug offenses, and given indeterminate sentences, contact a Queens Drug Lawyer. A Queens Criminal Lawyer can represent your interests and help you regain your freedom.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Defendant Claims Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in the case is Vicki Trees. She is a juvenile and is represented by her parents, Jerry L. and Jewell Trees. The appellee in the case is the K-Mart Corporation located in the town of Lake Park in Florida. Additional appellees in the case are Frank Cardinal, Frank Helm, and Paul Friedman.

Appeal

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said Vicki Trees was a plaintiff in a false arrest and malicious prosecution suit. She is appealing the verdict of the case, stating that the original trial court admitted evidence improperly that showed her participation in a collateral crime.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction in Shoplifting and Drug Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant of this case is the State of Florida. The state of Florida is being represented by the attorney general, Robert L. Shevin, and the assistant attorney general, Richard W. Prospect. The appellee in the case is Gregory Dean Bradley. He is being represented by public defender, Michael J. Minerva, and assistant public defender, Janice G. Scott.

The case is being heard in the first district of the District Court of Appeal in the state of Florida. The judge overseeing the case is Boyer.

Appeal