New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
Defendant was arrested for acting in concert with co-defendant in allegedly committing the crimes of Kidnapping in the First Degree, Rape in the First Degree, Sodomy in the First Degree, and Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree, against a lady victim. Defendant and co-defendant were subsequently indicted for all of the above charges.
A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that Defendant and co-defendant detained Victim in a car and refused to let her leave when she requested to do so. Further, when she attempted to get out, she was pulled back inside and her mouth covered when she tried to scream for help. Defendant and Co-defendant then held Victim down while Defendant inserted his penis into her vagina and Co-defendant inserted his penis into her mouth, both without her consent. At the time of his arrest, when told that he was being charged with rape, Defendant responded, “I kind of had that feeling.” He was subsequently identified by both Victim and an eyewitness in separate corporeal lineups.
In the course of the Grand Jury presentation, it was established that Victim was with her friend. The latter knew Defendant and talked to him while Victim was standing close by. Victim and friend got into the back seat of the vehicle. When the friend got out to purchase some cigarettes or marijuana, Defendant drove off with Victim. Victim called to her friend for help. However, Co-defendant pulled her back into the car. Defendant proceeded to drive to a parking lot. He then got into the back seat, grabbed Victim’s thigh and demanded that she place his penis into her mouth. Thereafter, Defendant removed Victim’s pants, held her hands down, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her against her will. Co-defendant then inserted his penis into Victim’s mouth and masturbated into her mouth while Defendant held her hands down as she was repeatedly shouting, “No.” Co-defendant then struck Victim in the mouth. Afterwards, Victim was driven to within one block of her home and forcibly thrown out of the car.
DNA tests performed on the victim and Defendant revealed that his semen and that of another male were found on a vaginal swab of the victim as well as on her panties.
Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to the lesser included offense of Attempted Sexual abuse in the First Degree. He received a sentence of an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from one and one-third to four years. In the course of his allocution, the People stated that if this matter had gone to trial, “the People would have proven that defendant did, by forcible compulsion, force the complainant in the case, Victim, to have sex with him”. Defendant then admitted under oath, “I had sex with her without her consent”.
The Board submitted a Risk Assessment Instrument. It recommends designating Defendant as a Sexually Violent Offender based on his conviction for Attempted Sexual abuse in the First Degree. It also recommends classifying Defendant as a Risk Level 2 based on an assessed score of 95. Specifically, the Board assessed: 10 points for use of forcible compulsion; 25 points for sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse or aggravated sexual abuse with the victim; 20 points for being either a stranger to the victim or having a relationship established for the purpose of victimizing or a professional relationship; 5 points for a criminal history with no sex crimes or felonies; 15 points for a history of drug or alcohol abuse; and 20 points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined or supervised including sexual misconduct.
The Board then compiled a Case Summary “based upon a review of the inmate’s file which includes but is not limited to the pre-sentence investigation, prior criminal history and post-offense behavior.”
Relying primarily on a case cited by them, Defendant argues that because he was convicted of Attempted Sexual abuse in the First Degree, there was no sexual contact, and, therefore, he should receive zero points in that category “even if it was his intent to have forced sexual intercourse with the victim”. It is contended that this is because SORA specifically rejected a mens rea based approach “in favor of a more workable guideline that focuses upon the offender’s conduct”.
To Be Con’t….
I
People who sexually abuse others should be punished accordingly. These people, upon doing sexual acts to others against their will knew for a fact that their act is against the law. Here in Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our Queens County Rape lawyers will render their service to these helpless rape victims to attain justice for the acts committed against them. We also have our Queens County Criminal attorneys who will represent you in court to prosecute these heartless offenders.