New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: January 20, 2013

Mental Health Facility Refuses to Admit Mentally Ill Defendant After Acquitted from Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The director of mental health division refused to admit the petitioner who was acquitted from her criminal charges for petit larceny by reason of insanity. The district court rendered a commitment order of the insane person at a mental health facility of the Florida state. However, the director refused to admit the petitioner raising the issue of danger that would be cause by the accused towards individuals she may be in contact with. The judge sought to show cause from the medical director before the court for failure to follow the commitment order it issued.

In response, a motion to dismiss was filed by the director. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he alleged that the criminal cannot be committed in the mental health facility unless she is civilly committed pursuant to the provisions of the law. The court, on the other hand, averred that the acquitted felon of petit larceny cannot be discharged since she is manifestly dangerous to the peace and safety of the people that she may be in contact with, which warrants her admission to a mental health facility instead. The refusal of the director to admit the petitioner resulted to the imprisonment of the latter at a detention center that caused danger to herself and others.

The Court found that the provisions of the statute pertaining to non-admittance of the acquitted defendant of petit larceny by reason of insanity were unconstitutional and is considered ineffective and inapplicable against the petitioner. It can be established that the due to the insanity of the accused her discharge or release cannot be warranted since she is a danger to herself and others, thus, admission to a mental health facility was deemed necessary. A New York Criminal Lawyer also said the court also ruled that the director of the mental health services admit the defendant for hospitalization and treatment without the occurrence of civil commitment proceedings.

Published on: January 19, 2013

Court Discusses Dual Sovereignties Doctrine

by Stephen Bilkis

On the morning of December 15, 1971 two men and a woman were observed entering the New York residence of the husband and his wife carrying empty shopping bags or, in Grant’s case, with a collapse valise. When they departed, the three left with their once empty receptacles, filled. They were then followed to different distribution points where they were arrested. Searches conducted incident to the arrests revealed that they each had over one pound of heroin possession. A subsequent search of the couple’s residence produced large amounts of narcotics, money, weapons and drug packaging materials.

On December 28, 1971 the three were indicted by the Bronx County Grand Jury which, by five indictments, charged the three and the wife with criminal law violation through crack possession. The indictments also charged one of the three complainants with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of reckless endangerment and possession of a weapon; and the complainant couple with two counts each of possession of weapon and criminally using drug paraphernalia.

Thereafter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said in November, 1972 the complainants and 14 others were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute narcotic drugs. The indictment set forth 18 overt acts that the complainants allegedly committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, the last of which stated that the three together with the husband did distribute and possess with intent to distribute a total of eight and one-half (8 1/2) kilograms of heroin hydrochloride, and, in addition, did obtain $70,000 income and resources from prior heroin distributions.

Published on: January 19, 2013

Court Discusses Legal Elements of Rape Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 10, 1980, two men armed with a shot gun entered a fast food restaurant in Nassau County. They threatened the employees with bodily harm if they did not hand over the cash in the cash box. When the two female employees handed to the two armed men all the cash from the cash box, the men forced the women to go outside the restaurant. They forced the women to ride in their car which was parked outside the restaurant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the two armed men drove for twenty minutes from the fast food restaurant in Nassau County to a dead end street somewhere in Suffolk County. During the drive, the men took turns feeling up the women’s skirts and shirts. The men fondled the women’s breasts and sex organs.

When they got to the dead end street in Suffolk County, the men took turns raping the two women. When the men were exhausted, they threatened the women and their families with death should they report the rapes to the police. The two men then let the two women go.

Published on: January 18, 2013

Defendants Charged with Fraud By False Promise

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, in 1986 although the installation of individual water meters was required in commercial and industrial buildings, 630,000 one and two family homes were unmetered and billed for water on an arcane basis unrelated to usage and predicated on property frontage. The City decided to meter these homes and to do so through a municipal installation project rather than by requiring the individual homeowners to install them. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the City would use a competitive bidding process, and award contracts according to the boundaries of the City’s community boards. As is common in such contract bidding processes, the City prepared bid packages for prospective bidders. In addition to technical information and cost estimates, the bid package informed prospective bidders that they would be required to calculate labor costs in accordance with Labor Law Section 220, which requires contractors performing public works projects to pay the workers the prevailing wage. The bid packages let out in 1989 and 1990 also required that the contracting party would have to perform certain work known as pre-plumbing work. In essence, the contracts with the City would require that pre-plumbing work be supervised by a licensed master plumber.

After conducting pre-bid conferences, the City circulated an addendum to the bid specifications which set forth the specific wages that the bidders would be required to pay their employees. The defendants received this addendum. After the bids were publicly opened, the lowest bid was determined and the contracts were awarded to the defendants. The defendants executed formal contracts, to which were annexed the bid information and the wage schedules, which were also incorporated by reference. Each contract provided: The wages to be paid and the supplements to be provided, for a legal day’s work, to laborers, workmen or mechanics employed by the Contractor shall not be less than the prevailing wages and supplement required to be paid to such employees, as ascertained and prescribed by the Comptroller in the Specifications attached hereto.

A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the indictment charges larceny by false promise, grand larceny by false pretenses, scheme to defraud, and filing of a false instrument, conspiracy, and perjury. The thrust of the indictment is that the defendants never intended to comply with the prevailing wage and pre-plumbing master plumber requirements. Among other evidence which was presented to the Jury was that the defendants calculated their bids based on piecework rather than hourly costs, that they promised workers the higher of piecework or hourly rate, but only paid a piecework rate that resulted in a lower wage than an hourly rate at the prevailing wages, that the defendants arranged with a licensed plumber to falsely make it appear that a licensed plumber was supervising pre-plumbing work, and that the defendants submitted false and perjurious forms to the City certifying they had complied with the contracts.

Published on: January 17, 2013

Court Unravels Complicated Larceny Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The charges in this case arise from five separate incidents, beginning in July 1986. On July 3, 1986, a man representing himself as an executive of a foreign branch of General Electric Corporation, asked that $5,000 in travelers’ checks be prepared and delivered to an associate, K.D. Thereafter, defendant appeared at the offices of General Electric, identifying himself as K.D., and as KD, signed five Citicorp travelers’ checks purchase agreements, one for each of five $1,000 packets of checks, then signed many of the checks in the upper left hand corner, as required of purchasers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when it was discovered a week or two later that there had been no authorization for the checks, most, if not all, of the checks had been negotiated at various metropolitan locations. A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of one count of grand larceny in the second degree for stealing property having an aggregate value in excess of $1,500, three counts of forgery in the second degree and three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree with respect to the travelers’ checks and of forgery in the second degree with respect to the purchase agreement.

Thereafter, defendant stayed at the Days Inn in Manhattan registering as KD, and advancing $140 as a deposit. During his stay, he presented the cashier with a purchase order from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, providing that Met Life was to be billed for the room, taxes and incidental expenses. Days Inn refunded defendant his initial deposit and the bill for his four day stay ($819.67) was never paid since defendant was neither employed by Metropolitan nor authorized to present such a purchase order. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

Thereafter, defendant was arrested at the Omni Park Central Hotel when the police traced his car to that location and learned a K.D. was registered there. A Chevron Gulf credit card belonging to RG was recovered from defendant. Upon his arrest, defendant was charged with forgery in the second degree, criminal impersonation in the second degree, and theft of services, all arising from the Days Inn incident. At the trial, a New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree relating to the possession of the Chevron credit card.

Published on: January 16, 2013

Consent to Search Questioned

by Stephen Bilkis

Seldom has this Court considered a more spectacular or bizarre case than this habeas corpus petition of an experienced Texas criminal lawyer, former mayor of the City of Pasadena, Texas, who was found guilty in Texas State Court of being the mastermind and accomplice in an especially brutal and horrible assault and robbery, but who contends that he was invalidly convicted in violation of federal constitutional rights.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, S.H. is presently serving a sixty-year sentence imposed by the Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas. A jury found him guilty in a separate trial as an accomplice to the crime of robbery by firearms, committed by principals J.Y., C.S., and S.H. SH has appealed from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

On appeal Hoover has asserted two claims of error to the denial below of his habeas corpus petition based on federal constitutional grounds. First, he contends that the Court erred in refusing to sustain alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The State Trial Court admitted into evidence two diamonds seized from SH’s home during a nighttime search conducted by the Houston Police Department. SH argues that the search was made without his voluntary consent, by police officers acting under color of a search warrant which was invalid. Secondly, SH asserts that his right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was infringed when the State Trial Court admitted into evidence the oral confession of alleged principal and co-indictee CS. The confession, which also implicated SH as an accomplice, was admitted during the testimony of Officer C. V. Stone to whom CS confessed, pursuant to a well-established Texas exception to the hearsay rule which allows the confession of a principal to be admitted at the trial of an accomplice to prove the principal’s guilt, proof of such guilt being a necessary prerequisite to conviction of an accomplice to the offense.

Published on: January 15, 2013

Court Discusses the Elements of Petit Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

In this petit larceny case, this court reversed appellant’s conviction for robbery and “remanded for judgment and sentence for petit larceny.” However, after remand, at the state’s request, the trial court sentenced appellant for felony petit theft. A Seminole Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, appellant appeals, arguing that the charging document charging him with robbery did not allege that he had two or more prior petit theft convictions which convictions are essential elements of the substantive criminal offense of felony petit theft and, therefore, he was never charged with felony petit theft and his sentence for that crime violates his constitutional due process rights.

The issue in this case is whether the Court erred in sentencing appellant for the felony of petit theft.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Court said that, in a 1978 case, the Florida Supreme Court held (1) that the felony petit theft statute (then section 812.021(3), now section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes created a substantive offense, and (2) that the required two or more prior petit larceny convictions are elements of that substantive offense which must be specifically alleged and proved. To avoid jury prejudice against the accused, that case also held that proof of the prior petit theft convictions can be made to the court in a separate proceeding after the jury finds the defendant guilty of the charged petit larceny offense.

Published on: January 14, 2013

Accused Refused on the taking of DNA Samples Because it Would be Tantamount to Giving Evidence Against Himself.

by Stephen Bilkis

Seven men were grouped together outside a house. They were talking loudly together and drinking. One of the neighbors called the police and so two uniformed police officers were dispatched to the scene. The police officers had their police badges and did not have their guns drawn.

As they were speaking with the group of seven men, one of the men stood up and pulled up his pants by his waistband and walked away in the direction of the house. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the man adjusted his pants, a small plastic bag fell from his pant leg. The police officer saw the plastic bag and it was a resealable bag contained dried herbs. The police officers seized the plastic bag from the ground and smelled it and they thought it was marijuana. Subsequent testing revealed it to be marijuana as suspected by the police officers (marijuana possession).

They followed the man who had gone into the house. The police officers knocked on the door and the residents of the house opened the door to the police officers and let the police officers in to the house. When the police officers went into the house, they noticed that a group of men were also drinking. Their bottled alcoholic beverages were contained in a cooler which lay open on the floor.

Published on: January 14, 2013

Court Discusses Penal Law 70.08 Regarding Violent Felonies

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree, a class B violent felony under Penal Law § 70.02 (1) (a). At his sentence, the People filed information alleging that defendant was a persistent VFO having been convicted of two previous violent felonies. The People alleged that on January 7, 1985, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in Nassau County and sentenced to a term of incarceration of 2Â½ years. The People also alleged that on July 18, 1986, defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree in Nassau County and sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration with a minimum of 4 years and a maximum of 8 years. The People further asserted that the following time periods during which defendant was incarcerated were tolled from the 10-year limitation: January 18, 1985 to April 5, 1990, and December 14, 1991 to June 9, 1994.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that, the court adjudicated defendant a persistent VFO and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 24 years to life, in accordance with the statutory guidelines set forth in Penal Law § 70.08.

Defendant now moves to set aside his sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20 on the grounds that he was unlawfully adjudicated a persistent VFO. In his motion, defendant claims that he was unlawfully adjudicated a persistent VFO.A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant argues that his 1985 conviction cannot serve as a predicate in conjunction with his 1986 conviction because the sentence on his earlier case was not imposed until after the commission of the felony on the latter case. To support his claim, defendant attached to his motion the commitment orders submitted by the Clerk of Nassau County to the State Department of Correctional Services on both the 1985 and 1986 convictions. Indeed, the orders confirm that defendant had been sentenced on his 1985 gun crime conviction on January 7, 1985-15 months after September 8, 1983, the date he committed the gun crime which led to his subsequent burglary conviction in 1986. Furthermore, the second violent felony offender statement submitted by the Nassau County District Attorney’s office upon defendant’s sentencing in 1986 establishes that the People did not rely upon defendant’s 1985 conviction to enhance his punishment. Instead, in 1986, the People relied upon defendant’s 1981 conviction of robbery in the first degree in Bronx County to establish that defendant was a second VFO.

Published on: January 14, 2013

Ambulance Workers Attacked While Performing Their Job

by Stephen Bilkis

Many people do not appreciate the unpredictability that comes with the job for an emergency medical technician. Often, they do not have any idea of the volatility of the situation that they have been dispatched to. In most cities, if the call is for a victim of a fight, the EMTs are directed to wait until police officers have certified that the scene is safe for them to enter before they go in. In some situations, they are sent into a volatile situation without advance notice.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that on Christmas Eve morning of 2006 at about two thirty, one EMT crew discovered that no call can be considered safe, even as you are leaving it. The man and woman team had responded to a call of a woman with an injured hand and possibly another injured person at the scene at 190 Butler Street in Brooklyn, New York. It appears from the transcript of the call that the technicians were notified that the injuries were the result of a fight, but police were not dispatched to the call until the female EMT placed the radio call for emergency assistance.

The team had arrived at the apartment building and noticed that there was a large group of people in front of the building. Everyone seemed to be in a festive mood and greetings were exchanged. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the team was taken to an apartment in the back where they treated the female with the injured hand and recommended that she go to a hospital for x-rays. She told the team that she had been in a verbal argument with a man and had punched the wall and injured her hand. She stated that she would go to the hospital on her own and the team walked back to their marked ambulance.