New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

This case concerns fortunately rare and inexplicable police misconduct. The case involved is a reprehensible police action including violence and deception, culminating in the further deceitful luring of a Pennsylvania resident into New York solely to make a sale of cocaine, for which he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life at Attica. At the time of trial, the defendant was in his mid-twenties and was a graduate student and teacher at Penn State University, on the brink of receiving his doctoral degree in plant physiology and biochemistry. He resided at State College, Pennsylvania. Although he admitted to having used three controlled substances on very few occasions, he had no prior criminal record for gun possession.

The events leading to the defendant’s conviction trace back to December 5, 1974 when a young man with an unsavory drug history, was arrested by the New York State Police in Steuben County for heroin possession, a class A-2 felony punishable by a 15-year to life term. At the time of his apprehension, he was on bail pending an appeal from a 1973 conviction, based on a guilty plea for the crack possession in the fourth degree, for which he had been sentenced to an indeterminate term of zero to three years at the New York Correctional Facility at Attica.

The man, who at the defendant’s trial admitted to being an inveterate user of drugs, including amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, marihuana and heroin, and a seller for profit to maintain his habit, was interviewed after his arrest on December 5, 1974 at the New York State Police substation at Painted Post. As found as a matter of fact by the trial court, during the questioning, an investigator of the New York State Police struck the man with such force as to knock him out of a chair, then kicked him, resulting in a cutting of his mouth and forehead, and shortly thereafter threatened to shoot him. The man testified that this abuse was administered because he refused to answer a question, that when struck his glasses flew off, that he was kicked in the ribs when down, that a chair was thrown at him, that he was also threatened with being hurled down a flight of steps, and that one of two uniformed State troopers who witnessed these events said that he may as well forget about it. They swear that the man fell from the substation on the steps. this is similar to domestic violence.

Continue reading

The defendant, a graduate student and teacher was convicted by the court without a jury. The conviction was of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, a class A felony and was sentenced to a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years to life. It is not disputed that on January 4, 1975 the defendant, while under police surveillance, sold a substantial quantity of cocaine to a police informant.

The informant who made the purchase of a drug upon which the defendant’s conviction is based, testified that he had known the defendant for about two years before the transaction of January 4, 1975; that he had visited the defendant’s Pennsylvania apartment on several occasions; and that he had made prior drug purchases from the defendant. He also testified that on December 4, 1974, the day before he was arrested in Steuben County for crack possession, he purchased 1,000 pills which he believed to be amphetamines, a gram of cocaine and one or two grams of PCP from the defendant in Pennsylvania. While it later developed that these pills were not a controlled substance, he asserted that the defendant told him that they were black beauties and he paid the defendant between $220 and $240 for the pills.

The informant admitted that over a period of time he had used amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, marijuana and heroin, and that he had sold drugs to others. He had a prior Chemung County conviction for marijuana possession which was pending on appeal. He was arrested for amphetamine possession and shortly thereafter he expressed a desire to work with the state police as an informant. He discussed with his attorney his possible informant’s role and its effect not only upon the charge with which he was then confronted but also upon the prior Chemung County conviction.

Continue reading

The indictment charges against defendant with others with various degrees of possession of a dangerous drug are as follows:

Count 1: 1st degree–possession of 16 ounces and more of heroin;

Count 2: 4th degree–possession of a narcotic drug (heroin) with intent to sell; and

A man was convicted of drug crime and subsequently given an undefined sentence of imprisonment with a term of two to six years. The complainant asserts that the man engaged in the sale of $350 of cocaine to an undercover police officer on two occasions. Afterward, cocaine and drug paraphernalia were recovered from the man’s apartment where the sales took place. In addition to the instant offense, the man was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, convicted of invalid use of a credit card with intent to defraud and convicted of criminal trespass in the second degree.

The man was initially released to parole supervision on the instant offense. The parole violation warrants were issued to the man. In the warrants, it was alleged that the man had used cocaine and marijuana, failed to report to his officer on multiple occasions, left his approved residence and failed to attend two programs required by the division of parole. Subsequently, the man was re-imprisoned for a parole violation and continued to be in prison at the time the instant motion was filed. The man has been punished for one disciplinary infraction while in prison for grand larceny.

While in prison, the man successfully completed his drug treatment program and another program. He entered the alcohol and substance abuse treatment program. He also continues to participate in the program, where he has received a number of positive reviews. He has received training or done work in a number of vocational areas and increased his grade levels in math and reading. Prior to prison, the man served for eight years in the National Guard. The man asserts that he would be able to count on the support of his wife if he were released. His wife also wrote a letter supporting him for the release. The man’s counsel, the office of the appellate defender, asserts that it would assist in the man’s reintegration through its social work unit if he were released.

Continue reading

The petitioner is the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) and in behalf of its membership seeks an order permanently enjoining the respondents, City Police Department, Police Commissioner, and the City.

The Respondent Department issued an Interim Order which in effect provides that applicants to and current members of the OCCB (Organized Crime Control Bureau) will be required to sign a form which advises them as a condition of initial and continued assignment to the Bureau that they will be required to consent to periodic random drug testing. Essentially, this would require each member, on demand, to submit a urine sample for Dole test analysis. This may take place at any time and is applicable to all officers of any rank within the Bureau.

The Order also provides that current members of OCCB who choose not to execute such forms and subject themselves to random testing will be transferred out of the Bureau without penalty or loss of rank. Once, however, such consent is signed, refusal to comply with the Order would result in disciplinary action by the Department. Any officer after testing who demonstrated positive test findings may be subjected to disciplinary action.

Continue reading

A man was tried without a jury on the charge of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree. But, he moved for a dismissal of the charge for failure of proof.

The man contends that the state was failed to call as a witness the police officer who was among those in the chain of possession and control of the alleged heroin.

At the trial, evidence was presented to show that another man bought from the man two packets of heroin. The other man enclosed the packets in a plastic box, scratched his initials on the box, and delivered the box to an investigator that the same day.

Continue reading

In this Drug crime, defendant appeals from the denial of his CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence imposed upon his adjudication as a second felony drug offender based on a 2001 conviction. Under Penal Law § 70.06(1)(b)(ii), it is the sentence date that determines whether a crime constitutes a predicate offense, not the date of conviction. Since defendant was resentenced for the 2001 crime after the instant offense was committed, the second felony adjudication and the sentence entered thereon must be vacated.

A New York Criminal Attorney said that in June 2001, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree in full satisfaction of the charges against him. He was adjudicated a second felony offender based on a 1993 Massachusetts conviction for distribution of a controlled substance, and later on, he received a determinate sentence of 4 years. However, at sentencing the court did not pronounce the mandatory term of post release supervision (PRS). Defendant did not appeal his conviction, nor did he argue that his sentence was illegal. Thereafter, the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) imposed a five-year period of PRS.

In 2006, in the matter on appeal, defendant was convicted of criminal possession and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. On November 14 of that year he was adjudicated a second felony drug offender based on the 2001 attempted robbery conviction, which was a violent felony. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of six years, to be followed by three years’ PRS. On appeal, defendant did not contest his adjudication as a violent predicate felon, and this Court affirmed the conviction.

Continue reading

This action concerns a young woman who at an early age became addicted to drugs. In 2005 when she was 18, she became a patient of the accused orthopedist and employee of orthopedic rehabilitation center for treatment of lower back pain and, a month later, for left ankle pain. From May 2005 through January 2007, the orthopedist prescribed large amounts of Vicodin and Methadone for the complainant woman’s pain. It is claimed that the multiple prescriptions by the orthopedist were improper, illegal and negligent and caused both physical and mental injury to the woman separate and apart from her earlier and continued addictions to illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine and illegally obtained drugs such as Oxycodone.

Before, the Court is a motion for summary judgment by the accused parties. It is supported by an affirmation from a Board Certified Orthopedist. He first reviews the allegations made by the woman against the orthopedist. They include negligently and unjustifiably prescribing opiates to the woman and, by doing so, aiding her drug habit and causing her addiction to these opiates, improperly prescribing Methadone without a proper license, and failing to refer the woman to a pain management specialist.

The Board Certified Orthopedist states, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty after reviewing all the relevant medical records and deposition transcripts, that the orthopedist committed no departure from good and accepted medical standards in his treatment of the woman, which was appropriate in every respect. He adds that as a licensed physician he was authorized to treat the woman and prescribe narcotic medications as he did without any negligence or medical malpractice.