New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 21, 2013

Defendant Claims Search Warrant Lacked Probable Cause

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendants are appealing a conviction that stems from a multi-count indictment. The first defendant appeals his conviction and sentence to life in prison for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 kg or less of marijuana (marijuana possession), and between 500 grams and 5 kilograms of cocaine, distribution of marijuana, and use of a communication facility to commission drug trafficking, and being felon in possession of a firearm.

The second defendant appeals her convictions of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or less of marijuana, and use of a communication facility to run a felony drug trafficking crime ring.

Arguments for Appeal

Published on: March 21, 2013

Defendant Appealing Order that Revoked his Probation

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant is appealing an order that revoked his probation after a trial court determined that he had violated the terms of his probation by being in possession of marijuana and cocaine.

Case Background

The appellant was placed on probation. It was not long afterwards that the appellant was arrested for possessing both marijuana and cocaine. His arrest on these charges led to an affidavit being filed stating he violated his probation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the affidavit alleged that the defendant had committed the offenses of possessing marijuana and cocaine, which violated his probation conditions that stated he was to live without violating the law.

Published on: March 20, 2013

Court Decides if Defendants Acts were Sufficient Heinous to Justify Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the defendant is a self-styled Hispanic civil rights advocate. He threatened to wreak one-half million dollars’ worth of damage to Citibank’s automatic teller machines in an attempt to induce Citibank to give money to several organizations.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the evening of June 4, 1984, thirty-one Citibank 24-hour banking facilities in the Bronx and Manhattan were vandalized, and glue and other unidentified substances poured into the part of the automatic teller machines into which customers insert their cards to activate the machines. The damage was extensive. In all, sixty-eight machines had to be repaired.

In twenty-one of the twenty-seven Manhattan facilities, one of defendant’s two Citibank banking cards were used to enter the facility before the machines were damaged. At one location, defendant’s card was used to complete a transaction at an automatic teller machine shortly before it was vandalized. At another, a video camera recorded defendant’s entry into the facility just after one of his cards had been used to unlock the door, and moments before the machines inside were damaged. The next day, defendant, while denying responsibility, spoke to a Citibank regional manager and told him that 109 of Citibank’s automatic teller machines had been “hit” and glue poured into them. Two days later, defendant told several Citibank executives that he was not asking for anything for himself, only for the “Hispanic community.” Otherwise, defendant explained, it “would be extortion.”

Published on: March 19, 2013

Defendant Contends Improper Jury Instructions Were Given in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Facts

An informant contacted agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and informed them that there were large transactions of large quantities of illegal drugs being made in the area. The informant then helped the Drug Enforcement Administration create a reverse sting operation. In the operation DEA officers poses as sellers of illegal drugs to help ferret out illicit drug traffickers. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the informant was instructed to put the word out that there was a large amount of marijuana available for sale.

The informant approached one of the bartenders at a local restaurant and told him that he had some friends that were looking for buyers for 1000 pounds of marijuana at $200 each. The informant told the bartender that they could easily make $25,000 each in the deal.

Published on: March 19, 2013

Defendants Contend Evidence was Not Admitted Properly

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendants and appellants in this case were convicted on a number of different accounts that involved trafficking marijuana. They are raising a number of different claims against their convictions. The main issues that are being raised are whether or not the district court properly denied motions to suppress the evidence that was seized from a search warrant that was executed and if the evidence was admitted properly. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they further question whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions.

Case Background

A federal grand jury issued an indictment with 27 charges against the seven defendants. There were numerous offenses related to the trafficking of marijuana (drug possession). There were also charges of conspiracy, criminal enterprise, importation, possession with the intent to distribute, and possession with the intent to distribute on board a United States vessel.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Defendant Files Motion to Supress Evidence in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant is appealing his conviction of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, possessing marijuana, and using a firearm in drug trafficking. He argues for reversal based on a denial to suppress evidence that was found in a search of his home and complains that the evidence in the case was insufficient to support any of his four convictions.

Case Background

Six probation officers acted on a tip that the defendant, who is a state probationer, was in possession of both contraband and firearms contrary to the terms of his probation. The officers arrived at the defendant’s home and he invited them in. The defendant first denied having weapons, but then admitted it and showed three weapons to the officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officers placed him under arrest at this time. The defendant then showed the officers two more weapons. In addition, the officers found several other weapons, drug paraphernalia, and miscellaneous drugs during their search.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Defendant Contends She Did Not Know She was Possessing Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this case involves a 17 year old juvenile who is challenging an adjudication made against her for possession of drug paraphernalia.

Case Background

The girl was driving her car with three friends. She was involved in a car accident. When the police arrived at the scene of the accident the driver’s side door was opened. The juvenile stated that the car belonged to her mom, but she used it quite often. The officer looked in the car through the open door and saw a glass item on the floorboard. He recognized it as a pipe that is often used to smoke illegal substances.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Defendant Charged with Stealing Contents of Airplane Hangar

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, a security officer assigned at an airline’s hangar at Kennedy Airport was approached on numerous occasions in the spring of 1976 by the defendant, who indicated an interest in securing entry to the hangar and in taking money from the safe therein. The security officer was offered the chance to make some money if he co-operated. A New York Criminal Lawyer said during the course of these conversations, he was asked, in increasing detail, about the alarm system in operation at the hangar. The security officer reported these conversations to his supervisor, the head of security of the airline.

The security officer had been in continual touch with his supervisors and the police had been alerted. Indeed, by the time Defendant was permitted into the hangar, one gate was manned by an undercover police officer posing as a security guard.

On October 26, 1976, Defendants called the security officer and told him they wanted to “come in that night.” At 11:15 P. M. The security officer met defendant at a diner. At 11:30 they entered a car and were joined by the co-defendants, who was carrying an attache case. Enroute to the airport, defendant discussed the job with the security officer. Defendant told him that in five years, “when its all over,” his share would be sent to him. Defendant advised him that in order to make it “look good” he would shackle him and take his gun. The other security guard would be tied and dropped off at the edge of the airport.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Defendant Seeks to Withdraw his Plea Based on Duress

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was indicted in three separate indictments by a Grand Jury charging him with two counts of assault in the second degree, escape in the second degree and resisting arrest; two counts of grand larceny in the third degree; and two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and one count of grand larceny in the third degree, respectively. Thereafter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the People moved to permit defendant to withdraw his not guilty pleas to all three indictments and substitute therefor a plea of guilty to one count of grand larceny in the third degree with respect to the second indictment and one count of grand larceny in the second degree with respect to the third indictment, in full satisfaction of all three indictments and of a felony offense for which he had been arrested but not yet indicted.

On appeal defendant urges that the plea bargain was illegal because it encompassed dismissal of a felony complaint for which he had not yet been indicted. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court ruled that while County Court had no authority to dismiss the felony complaint and did not purport to do so, the District Attorney had the discretion and authority to decline to continue prosecution of that offense. His agreement to do so as part of a negotiated plea is certainly legal.

Defendant next contends that his guilty plea to grand larceny in the second degree, a class D felony, permitted a maximum sentence of 3 1/2 to 7 years as a second felony offender. However, because the plea agreement provided for a sentence of 4 to 8 years in the event that defendant failed to make restitution of $11,000, defendant claims that his plea was illegal. We disagree. The Court viewed County Court’s action as an inadvertent misstatement. At the time of sentencing County Court properly sentenced defendant to a prison term of 3 1/2 to 7 years. It has long been the rule that a court has the inherent power to correct its own error in imposing sentence.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Court Decides if Criminal Offense Disallows Adoption by Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

A child was born on August 9, 2004. Since September 22, 2004, when the child was discharged from the hospital, on the basis of a petition that had been filed alleging that his biological mother had neglected him, the child has resided in the home of his maternal cousin and her husband.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the adoption home study prepared by a social worker employed by New York Foundling, the foster care agency that has care and custody of the child describes him as a healthy seven-year-old boy with no special needs who is developing age-appropriately, and who is beginning regular second grade classes. The home study also reflects the fact that the child’s maternal cousin and her husband have been married for over thirteen years and that they are both employed. The maternal cousin is a nursing assistant, and her husband is the Head Supervisor of the Custodial Department of a State College. Also residing in the home is the couple’s fifteen-year-old biological son. The social worker describes the biological son as healthy, doing well in school, and having a positive and loving relationship with the child. The adoptive parents, their son and the child reside in a three bedroom house in New York.

The couple has been involved in the child’s life since he was a baby. One can see that they love the child very much and that he means the world to them. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said they were observed by the social worker to be very attentive and affectionate toward the child, who lovingly refers to them as mommy and daddy. They share an inseparable bond with the child, and have a good understanding of his needs. They are providing effectively for his physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. The couple understand and willing to accept the moral and legal responsibilities of adoption. Their commitment to the child is deep rooted and they have made it clear that he knows that they are there for him. The child feels the same strong sentiments toward the family and although too young to fully comprehend adoption, he is a happy, well-adjusted child for he knows that he is loved and wanted. Based on the overall progress the child has made in the home, it is therefore recommended that the application for adoption submitted by the couple be approved and that the child be adopted by the caring family.