New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 2, 2014

The Court credits the Officer’s testimony at the hearing.

by Stephen Bilkis

On April 22, 23 and 28, 2008, this Court conducted a hearing pursuant to defendant’s 710.20 motion to suppress a gun, the magazine in the gun and the nine rounds of ammunition in that magazine. The issue of preclusion of other recovered objects is not before this court. A New York Marijuana Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the People called one witness New York City Police Officer who was assigned to the 75 Precinct Anti Crime-Unit at the relevant times. The defense called another New York City Police Officer who, at the relevant times, was the former Officer’s partner in the 75 Precinct Anti-Crime Unit; New York City Police Department Detective who, at the relevant times, was assigned to the Gun Enhancement Unit; and who, at the relevant times, was working in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. The Court credits Police Officer’s testimony as set forth below and makes the following findings of facts and reaches the following conclusions of law.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, on November 29, 2006, the said Officer was on anti-crime patrol with the Officer and Sergeant. They were in plain clothes in an unmarked police car. The Officer was in the right front passenger seat, the other Officer was driving and the Sergeant was in the rear. The Officer received training in the Police Academy, about five years earlier, regarding the packaging of marijuana. Moreover, as a police officer he had experience with marijuana possession in that he had made about ten arrests for marijuana during which he had been exposed to the odor of both burning and unburnt marijuana. In addition, he had assisted in about 20 other arrests involving marijuana during which he again was exposed to odor of both burning and unburnt marijuana. At approximately 1:10 A. M., the three officers were driving north on Georgia Avenue towards Linden Boulevard, an industrial and drug prone location. At that time there was no vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The Officers had their windows down so they could hear gunfire and smell drugs such as marijuana.

A New York Criminal Drug Possession Lawyer said that, as the officers proceeded north on Georgia Avenue, a light-colored Infinity with Connecticut plates passed them. When the Infinity was about a half car length or six to ten feet in front of the unmarked police vehicle, Officer smelled a strong odor of burning marijuana emanating from the Infinity. He mentioned this to the other two officers who agreed that there was an odor of burning marijuana. The officers followed about six to ten feet or more behind the Infinity for about a block to Linden Boulevard where it took a right and then proceeded on Linden Boulevard for a block to Sheffield Avenue. During this time the Officer continued to smell burning marijuana. Near the intersection of Linden Boulevard and Sheffield Avenue, the officers, using their lights and sirens, stopped the Infinity.

Published on: May 1, 2014

People v. Viano

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Viano

Courts Discusses Whether Failure to File a Special Information was Fatal to a Felony Charge of Driving While Intoxicated

The defendant was indicted with driving while intoxicated as a felony, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3). The defendant was previously convicted for driving while intoxicated prior which elevated the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, the prosecution failed to file a special information regarding the defendant’s prior conviction at the same time as the indictment, pursuant to section 200.60 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The trial judge, after the defendant’s Queens County Criminal Attorney objected, granted the request of the prosecution to file the special information prior to the close of the People’s case. The defendant was convicted and appealed.

Published on: April 29, 2014

Defendant was criminally engaged in possession

by Stephen Bilkis

This is drug crime where defendants are charged with one count of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree.

The challenge is directed to the motivation for and legality of a search for stolen property which also resulted in the not surprising seizure of other items including cocaine, alleged to have been found in “plain view”.

A Suffolk County Drug Crime attorney said that defendants are brother and sister and at all times relevant to these proceedings were residents at the subject premises in Long Island, a one-family house on about three acres of secluded property approximately 300 feet from the road.

Published on: April 29, 2014

Matter of Karlin v McMahon

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding wherein the petitioner made a FOIL request to the New York City Police Department in November 2007, requesting documents relating to his rape arrest.

On 16 September 2008, petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the NYPD denying his request. On 30 April 2009, the NYPD submitted documents for an In camera Inspection pursuant to this Criminal Court’s Order and Decision filed on 1 April 2009.

The Court, after reviewing the documents in camera, finds that the NYPD has made the requisite showing of proving exemption for these documents.

Published on: April 28, 2014

This is an Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County…

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Suffolk County Criminal attorney said that in May 2007, the defendant and four other individuals were arrested and charged with, inter alia, murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, for their alleged involvement in stealing a wrist watch and marijuana from the home of the victim, who was shot and killed during the course of the burglary in May 2007. The four codefendants entered into plea agreements, while the defendant proceeded to a jury trial.

In a pretrial omnibus motion, the defendant moved, inter alia, for a hearing. The People consented to the hearing and in their papers, stated that “[i]f the People intend to introduce testimony of the defendant’s prior bad acts, we will move the Court, in a written application, with adequate notice to defense counsel.” In an order dated March 11, 2008, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s request for a hearing to be conducted immediately prior to trial. However, no hearing was held, and the People never notified the defendant of their intention to impeach his credibility with respect to any prior criminal, vicious, or immoral acts.

Published on: April 28, 2014

People v Batista

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Batista

Court Discusses Whether the Defendant Fulfilled the Requirements for the Judge to give the Jury a Missing Witness Charge Instruction

The defendant was arrested and indicted for driving while intoxicated as a felony DWI, unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle and unlawful possession of marijuana. The charges arose when the defendant drove into a parked car after reversing through an intersection. The accident was witnessed by the owner of damaged car and another person came to call the police. The police officer upon arrival observed that the defendant had bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant took a chemical test and registered a .141 blood alcohol content. The defendant also did not have a valid license to operate the motor vehicle and possessed marijuana. A jury convicted the defendant of counts and he appealed. The defendant appealed on the grounds that the court failed to give a missing witness charge and prosecutorial misconduct.

Published on: April 26, 2014

Grand Jury was never specifically informed

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant moves, at the commencement of his jury trial, for this Court to re-inspect the Grand Jury minutes and dismiss the Indictment. The defendant herein is charged with Murder in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree. He alleges that his Indictment was improperly secured by virtue of the fact that the Assistant District Attorney failed to inform the Grand Jury that there was a cooperation agreement made by the District Attorney’s Office with a People’s witness. In addition, the defendant now maintains that the Grand Jury was not charged as to the legal requirement of corroborative evidence, pursuant to section 60.22 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

A Queens Drug Crime Lawyer said that, the People submit opposing papers which assert that the jury was properly advised as to corroboration, and while acknowledging that they did not inform the jury of the cooperation agreement, assert that they are under no obligation to inform the Grand Jury of such an agreement.

Upon the case being presented to the Grand Jury, People’s witness, who allegedly planned the murder, testified that he was the chief of the security force of a major drug crime gang and that he would, from time to time, assassinate individuals upon the orders of his superiors. In particular, he testified that he received orders from his superiors to have the victim herein, assassinated. He went on to state to the Grand Jury that the defendant, was one of the men involved in the killing and that he was present in a van used to transport the team of “hit” men to the place of execution.

Published on: April 26, 2014

People v Bolson

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Bolson

Court Discusses Whether a Family Member can be classified as a victim within the meaning of Section 390.30 (3) (b) of the CPL

The defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated but acquitted of manslaughter and vehicular assault. The defendant’s Queens County Criminal Attorney during the sentencing hearing made an objection regarding the inclusion of a victim impact statement in the presentence report by the family of the deceased. It was argued by the defendant’s counsel that report was not necessary because the defendant was acquitted on the charges involving the deceased. It was further contended that the letter was improperly communicated to the court by the deceased family and should not be considered by the court in determining his sentence.

Published on: April 25, 2014

People correctly concede

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a Criminal case where the Court rendered a decision revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the County Court, Suffolk County, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of grand larceny in the third degree.

A Suffolk County Grand larceny attorney said that in January 2001, the defendant was sentenced in the County Court, Suffolk County, upon his plea of guilty to grand larceny in the third degree, to a term of six months imprisonment and five years probation. The sentencing court acknowledged that the defendant was in custody and would receive credit for time served and, on appeal, the People acknowledge that the defendant was taken into custody on August 31, 2000.

Thereafter, in 2005, a declaration of delinquency was filed in the Supreme Court, Kings County, alleging that the defendant had violated a condition of his probation. During the violation of probation hearing, the defendant claimed that since he had served time in prison before pleading guilty and the term of probation ran concurrently with the term of imprisonment, the probationary period began to run in August 2000, the date he was taken into custody, and expired prior to the filing of the declaration of delinquency. The Department of Probation argued that the term of probation began to run from the date the sentence was imposed.

Published on: April 25, 2014

SORA is reasonable

by Stephen Bilkis

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant appears before this Court having pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the crime of Enticement of A Minor To Engage In Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422[b] in satisfaction of a six count indictment also charging defendant with, among other crimes, Distribution of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(1) and Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B). The defendant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of sixty months to be followed by five years of supervised release and will be monitored by a Federal Probation Officer for the duration of that five year term. Pursuant to Correction Law §168-n, a “Risk Level Assessment” hearing was held before this Court on May 15, 2009 to determine the defendant’s level of community notification.

The Court has considered the Risk Assessment Instrument and Case Summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (the “Board”), a packet of materials which includes the defendant’s federal pre-sentence investigation report submitted by the defendant’s Federal Probation Officer to the Board, the arguments of both the People and defense counsel, a memorandum of law submitted by defense counsel and the Court’s observations of the defendant during the hearing.

A Suffolk Felony Lawyer said that, a short recitation of the operable facts leading to the defendant’s conviction, as culled from the record before the Court, is necessary. On July 26, 2004 the Dallas, Texas division of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.) learned that the defendant, using the screen name/email address “kels4eval@yahoo.com”, was using the internet to solicit young adolescent girls for sexual encounters. The F.B.I. later learned that the screen name was registered to the criminal defendant. An undercover agent accessed the internet using the screen name “maddies2cute,” a nom de plume for a twelve-year-old girl. For approximately two weeks the defendant engaged in sexually explicit on-line conversations with the girl at times sending her photographs depicting pornography and exposing his penis to her through the use of a web-cam. On August 5, 2004 the defendant arranged to meet the girl and her thirteen-year-old friend at a Dallas hotel to engage in sexual conduct. The next day the defendant drove to the hotel, but left after he was unable to get a room. He was arrested shortly thereafter.