New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 9, 2012

Court Decides Case Based on New Sentencing Guidelines

by Stephen Bilkis

Prior to January 2005, indeterminate sentencing was considered the norm. It was originally designed as a means of tailoring the sentence to the crime. The belief was that since everyone is an individual, indeterminate sentences allowed a defendant the option of faster improvement. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said it was hoped that the indeterminate sentence would encourage defendants to demonstrate good behavior in an attempt to shorten their overall term of incarceration. The experiment was a dismal failure. Rather than encouraging good behavior, it instilled a feeling of helplessness in the inmate population. The sentences were sometimes completely different for persons involved in the same crime. The disparate sentences that some offenders received soon became regarded as a problem. The violence that some of these offenders demonstrated while incarcerated was also higher than the levels of violence demonstrated by offenders with definitive sentences. The hopelessness of having no way of knowing when the end of their sentences might arrive created an air of hostility and despair in the inmate population. By 2005, the trend of indeterminate sentencing had been recognized as a failure and sentencing reform laws were initiated to correct the problem.

These sentencing reform guidelines had several necessary provisions. They were designed to allow defendants who were charged with non-violent drug offenses to be given determinate sentences that were often much lower than their original indeterminate sentences were. The guidelines state that the person must be a non-violent offender and cannot have committed a violent offense within 10 years of the application for determinate sentencing.

In the present case, the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence and is attempting to be approved for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act to a determinate sentence of three and one half years as a second non-violent felony offender. The original date of his offence was August 26, 2003 and no final adjudication had been made at the time of his request. He states that the revised sentencing guidelines are an amendment of a failed method and because of that, he is entitled to be sentenced under these guidelines as opposed to sentencing under the old ones. His crime was committed prior to the enactment of the new statute.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendant Claims Illegal Search

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers who work drug related crimes require specialized training to ensure that they conduct themselves appropriately while they are performing their duties. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the nature of drug crimes is that it changes frequently. The fluidity of the laws surrounding the actions of the police and prosecutors means that occasionally, the fall behind the law in matters that relate to the arrests and prosecutions of offenders. That means that a person who has obtained a good attorney is more capable in most cases of interpreting recent case law as well as statutory law. One case that helped to define the criteria of modern drug law occurred in January of 1981.

On January 31, 1981, two detectives were in an unmarked undercover vehicle in an area where drug problems had been reported. They were using binoculars to survey the area. They observed a car at 8:15 at night pull up and park on the curb about 100 feet away from them. They watched with their binoculars for several minutes while suspected customers came up to the car and transactions took place. Specifically, what the officers observed was that another car would pull up, and a person would approach the driver of the parked vehicle. A conversation would ensue. Money would be handed to the driver, or the passenger, who was later identified as the defendant’s wife. A small tinfoil ball would be handed to the person out of the car window. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers observed the purchaser hold the tinfoil ball to his nose and smell it before leaving. After watching two of these transactions, the officers approached the vehicle and notified the marked patrol backup unit to respond to the location.

The officers handcuffed the driver and his male companion and searched them. They located an envelope of marijuana on the driver’s person. The detectives identified themselves and placed the two male subjects in the back of the detective car handcuffed while they interviewed the additional suspects. When the marked unit arrived and the detective started to transfer the prisoners, they located a clear plastic baggie of angel dust in the driver’s coat pocket. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said one the prisoners were properly searched and placed into the marked unit, the officers checked their back seat and discovered that there were four tinfoil balls of angel dust on the seat of the vehicle. At the precinct, the officers recovered $237 cash from the driver and his wife.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendants Claim Trial Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 7, 1984, at approximately 5:00 P.M., a 20-year-old taxi driver met his friend who spent the evening with him riding in the front seat of his cab. At about 8:30 P.M. he proceeded to Union Place pursuant to a radio dispatch and picked up two young men, the accused and the co-accused. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that although the taxi driver did not know the pair, his companion recognized them from the neighborhood. The taxi driver was directed by the men to take them to Yonkers. During the trip, which took approximately four minutes, no one spoke.

When they arrived at the destination, the accused told the taxi driver that he was going inside the building to find some friends and asked to wait for him. The co-accused remained in the back seat of the taxi while the accused went inside. Shortly thereafter, the accused returned, accompanied by another male, and asked the taxi driver to drive them back to Union Place.

As the taxi was travelling down the hill that approached Union Place, the accused placed a gun to the taxi driver’s neck and told him to give his money. He saw the gun and felt it pressed to his neck. In response to the demand, he gave the robbers approximately $20 he had in his shirt pocket and an additional sum of approximately $100 from his wallet. The three men then exited the taxi and ran off into the darkness. During the robbery, the co-accused pushed the driver’s companion forward in the front seat to keep her head down.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Judge Acquits Man Found Guilty by Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 11, 1980, a man was walking outside his apartment. Two men who also frequented the apartment building where he lived came up to him and talked to him. Thinking that they were just being friendly, he stopped to chat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men blocked his way and the other asked him for his money. When he said he didn’t have any money on him, the man grabbed his hand and forcibly took the ring he was wearing on his finger.

The two men immediately turned and left the man. He reported the robbery to the police. He gave their names to the police and their description and they were arrested. They were charged with robbery in the second degree. The indictment alleged that the two men acted in cooperation with one another and being physically present at the same time and forcibly stole the ring from the man.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Determines Technical Violations of Parole

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover police officer, a drug crime. On the day after the sale, defendant was arrested.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant was charged with the crime of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree.

Defendant pled guilty to the sole count of the indictment and in exchange was promised an indeterminate sentence of five to ten years of incarceration.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defendant Alleges Faulty Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

Warrants to search and arrest on drug crimes are often more complicated than those of other crimes. The case law on drug crimes seems to change on a daily basis depending on the political motivations at the time of the case. Currently, officers are allowed more latitude to rely on experience for articulable reasonable suspicion to stop a person even on a Terry stop than they were just a few years ago. The ground of probable cause based off of the articulable suspicion then becomes convoluted. It is not uncommon for a warrant to be signed that is later ruled inadmissible due to many unforeseeable factors. The scope of the search may be overstated, or understated. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the officers involved in the search may overstep their boundaries. The information that the warrant was issued on may even be proven false or incorrect in a later hearing of the facts of the case. Just because the police have obtained a warrant, does not mean that the warrant cannot be challenged.

On December 6, 1999, a search warrant was executed in Queens County by the detectives who had obtained the warrant. They had presented their probable cause to obtain the warrant based on the fact that they had a confidential informant who had purchased marijuana at the first floor apartment on two previous occasions. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the detectives had gone to the location and observed the actions that were taking place there. They had checked with the utility company and verified that the location was a residence. The confidential informant had stated that the drugs had been purchased by a man known only to him as Greg and that Greg had gone into the first floor apartment to retrieve the drugs. The officers described the location as a first floor and basement apartment of a two story red brick building. The apartment is located behind a restaurant at the same address.

When the officers executed the search warrant, they located several items in plain view. They recovered marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and other drug related items. During the search of the residence per the warrant, one of the defendants made several exculpatory statements to the detectives. The defendants were arrested and charged with their crimes. They filed motions to suppress the evidence and statements on the grounds that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish proper probable cause for the warrant to be valid. The items were suppressed and the prosecution filed an appeal of the suppression.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defense Contends Jury Instructions Were Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

During the armed robbery of a jewelry store in New York City, three men entered the jewelry store and while robbing the store, they hurt and wounded the wife of the owner. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the fourth man was outside, in the van, waiting for his friends. He drove his friends to the jewelry store and drove them away from the premises after they came out of the jewelry store.

The driver was charged with robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree. During the deliberation of the jury, they asked the trial court to explain if the driver of the car could be found guilty of the robbery if he did not know in advance that his friends were going to commit armed robbery. The trial court told the jury that a person who aids in the escape of those who committed armed robbery is equally guilty of the armed robbery.

The jury then also asked if the driver could also be found guilty of the assault even if he did not know and did not participating in the assault of the proprietor’s wife. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the trial judge said that those who participate in the commission of the armed robbery are equally responsible of all those who committed the crime.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Discusses Various Degrees of Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

In just one afternoon of April 7, 2009 a man snatched the purse of an old lady as she was about to enter a store inside a shopping mall. Later that afternoon, that same man walked into a bank. He walked up to the counter and grabbed a teller by her shirt and jacket. He pulled the teller onto the counter and made her give him money. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teller gave the man the cash that was available to her in the sum of $1464. The man took the money and escaped running from the bank.

Two days later, the man came to a police station in Schoharie County and surrendered. He confessed to the robbery he committed. He was charged with first degree robbery, fourth degree grand larceny for the bank robbery and grand larceny for snatching the old lady’s purse. Because the man had voluntarily surrendered and confessed to the commission of the robbery and the larceny, he was tried without a jury. The trial was only to submit evidence other than the man’s confession that a crime had been committed by the man.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man was convicted of the same charges of robbery and grand larceny, He was later sentenced to concurrent prison terms. He was sentenced to serve ten and a half years for robbery and one to four years of grand larceny. But the trial court ordered that the prison sentence for the other grand larceny charge be served consecutive to the other grand larceny sentence. The trial court also ordered the man to pay restitution to the bank of $1500 plus a 5% surcharge. The man appealed his conviction.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Decides if Accomplice will be Convicted

by Stephen Bilkis

Five men formed a gang whose only purpose was to prey on drug dealers. They targeted drug dealers who were always awash with cash and robbed them. They also took the drugs they found on the drug dealers and sold these on the street. One night, on February 12, 1997, all five men planned to rob a drug dealer who had a first floor apartment on Riverside Drive.

Of the five men, one was to be the driver and wait for them in the car while the others entered the apartment of the drug dealer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said their plan was to ring the doorbell and when they were buzzed in, they would force themselves inside the apartment of the drug dealer. The group came late and they missed the drug dealer who had already left his apartment. There was no one home. So the five men went their separate ways.

A few hours later four of the five men came together to see if the drug dealer had come back to his apartment; the driver did not go back with his four friends on the second robbery attempt. He went home.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Robbery Defendant Claims Misidentification in Line Up

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 November 1988, early in the evening, A New York City Police Officer and his partner, both assigned to the 34th Precinct, were on routine motor patrol, when they received a radio message directing them to the corner of 213th Street and Broadway, New York County.

As the officers were approaching the location, one of the officers saw one man holding another man, with a woman standing nearby.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men, informed the officer that, after he had heard a woman screaming, he saw the man, who he was now holding and who was later identified as the defendant, running from Inwood Park, carrying a brown pocketbook, and he responded by seizing and holding the defendant, while a bystander summoned the police. At that point, the man gave the officer a rubberized hammer handle, as well as the pocketbook, and he told the officer that he had taken both of those items from the defendant. Further, the man explained to the officer that the defendant had attempted to strike him with the hammer handle.