New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 18, 2013

Court Decides if Defendant Has Right to Speedy Trial after Traffic Infraction

by Stephen Bilkis

The defense motion to dismiss the charge of Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol, a traffic infraction, pursuant to the speedy trial provisions of Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) is denied. While CPL does not apply to traffic infractions there is a constitutional right to a speedy trial which has not yet been violated.

A New York DWI Lawyer said it is undisputed that fifty-two days between the accused man’s arraignment and the complainant being ready for trial are chargeable to the complainant. The accused argues that the case should be dismissed as more than 30 days have passed since the accused man’s arraignment, the time allowed to be ready for trial on a violation.

Criminal Procedure Law establishes that when the accused is not in custody, the complainant must be ready for trial within 90 days if the highest crime charged is a class A or unclassified misdemeanor which is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than three months or within 60 days if the highest crime charged is a class B misdemeanor which is punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than three months or within 30 days if the offense is a violation.

Published on: March 5, 2013

Defendant Claims Drugs Weren’t His

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing two orders that were made by the County Circuit Court. The first order that is being appealed denied his motion for post-conviction relief. The second order revoked his probation and imposed a prison sentence.

The defendant raises three main points on appeal. First, the court erred in denying his motion for relief because he was on probation and was not a prisoner in custody under the sentence when he made the motion. Second, the evidence was not sufficient in the case to support the fact that he had constructive possession of the legal illicit drugs. Finally, he argues that the court erred in his sentencing by not following sentencing guidelines.

Case Background

Published on: March 5, 2013

Defendant Charged with Criminal Facilitation in the 4th Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal was made by the accused man from a judgment of the County Supreme Court rendered on October 26, 1983, convicting him of four counts of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and the imposing sentence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the judgment was affirmed and the matter was remitted to the County Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Law.

Pursuant to the defense counsel’s request, the trial court charged criminal facilitation in the fourth degree as a lesser included offense of grand larceny in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the second degree. The accused man was ultimately found guilty of four counts of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree and acquitted of all other charges. The accused argues, as he did on his motion to set aside the verdict, that criminal facilitation in the fourth degree is not a lesser included offense of grand larceny in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the second degree and that the defect in erroneously charging such a request is non-waivable inasmuch as it goes to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. A New York Criminal Lawyer said criminal Term resolved both issues against the accused man. Since the accused man effectively waived any error in the submission of the charge of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree to the jury, the Appellate Court affirms.

A comparative evaluation of the two operative statutes, grand larceny in the second degree and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree reveals that the latter is not a lesser included offense of the former because it is theoretically possible for a person to commit the crime of grand larceny in the second degree without intending to aid anyone else in the commission of a felony.

Published on: March 4, 2013

Court Discusses Single Transaction Rule in Marijuana Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged with selling a controlled substance, cannabis and for having more than five grams of cannabis. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was convicted on both charges and was sentenced separately for each of the crimes. The appellant argues that the trial court has violated the single transaction rule by imposing separate sentences for the sale and the possession of marijuana.

Case Background

The evidence that was shown at trial revealed that there were two undercover police officers who met three individuals at a bar in town. One of the individuals told the undercover agent that they could obtain a quantity of marijuana. The agents were driven to another bar by their companions.

Published on: March 3, 2013

Juvenile is Charged with Cocaine and Marijuana Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

A juvenile is appealing adjudications made against him that found him guilty of possession of cocaine and marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he states that the trial court erred when they denied his motion for judgment of acquittal when the state had failed to present substantial evidence to prove constructive possession of the contraband.

Adjudicatory Hearing

During the adjudicatory hearing there was testimony that revealed that the defendant along with a friend asked another person for a ride to a woman’s house to pick up some items. The defendant rode in the back of the individual’s truck. The defendant and his friend got out of the truck at the house. The young men did not know that the house was under surveillance.

Published on: March 2, 2013

Defendant Found With Stolen Prescription Pad

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 9 October 1980, at approximately 11:30 A.M., the defendant was arrested on East 40th Street in Manhattan, in possession of a blank prescription pad bearing the name of a certain doctor, a hypodermic syringe, twelve tablets of Triavil, and one bottle of Procaine. Thereafter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the arresting officer, a Police Officer of the 9th Precinct, telephoned the doctor concerned at his Bronx office, inquiring whether the doctor had been burglarized. The doctor informed the officer that he was not aware of any burglary at his Manhattan or Bronx office, but that the man arrested was not authorized to take, use, or possess the property. Thus, the officer charged the defendant with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, Criminally Possessing a Hypodermic Needle, and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree. Defendant was given a Desk Appearance Ticket, returnable on 24 October 1980. A misdemeanor complaint containing these charges was filed with the court.

On the same day, at about 3:00 P.M., when the aforesaid doctor arrived at his Manhattan office, he discovered that it had indeed been burglarized. The doctor reported the incident and officers from the 17th Precinct Burglary Unit responded. On this call, one of the Police Officers lifted a latent fingerprint from a cigarette package apparently left by the burglar. The doctor informed the Burglary Unit officers of the earlier telephone call he had received at his Bronx office, but was unable to recall the name, shield or command of the earlier caller. All attempts of the 17th Precinct Burglary Unit to ascertain the identification of that first caller proved unsuccessful.

Published on: March 1, 2013

Defendant Claims an Error was Made in Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner is a federal prisoner who has petitioned to have an error of law in the calculation of his sentenced based on a Supreme Court Decision that interpreted sentence guidelines. This decision was made eleven years after the defendant was sentenced.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue before the court is whether the savings clause permits a federal prisoner to challenge his sentence in a habeas corpus petition when he could not raise that challenge in motion because of the bar against successive motions.

Petitioner’s Argument

Published on: March 1, 2013

Defendant Found Breaking into Vehicle with Screwdriver

by Stephen Bilkis

A man, the herein defendant, was observed by a police officer breaking into a motor vehicle using a screwdriver. He was then arrested and indicted. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the indictment originally charged him with, inter alia, attempted grand larceny in the second degree based on an allegation that he attempted to steal property, an automobile, with a value of more than $1,500. However, this charge was incorrect, inasmuch as the attempted grand larceny in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law, requires an allegation that the property exceeded $50,000 in value. Thus, shortly before trial commenced, the prosecutor moved, without any objection by defense counsel, to amend the indictment to charge attempted grand larceny in the third degree on the basis that the defendant attempted to steal property valued in excess of $3,000. The proposed amendment was legally correct and conformed to the evidence and the instructions presented to the Grand Jury. However, although the court indicated that it would grant the motion, only the accusatory portion of the count was amended from attempted grand larceny in the second degree to attempted grand larceny in the third degree; the factual portion alleging that the value of the subject property exceeded $ 1,500 remained unchanged, and therefore, the count was still incorrect. Thereafter, on 8 August 1995, the Supreme Court of Queens County rendered judgment convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Consequently, the defendant files an appeal from the said decision.

The Ruling of the Court:

Published on: March 1, 2013

Court Discusses Charge of Criminal Facilitiation

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted on charges of four counts of grand larceny in the second degree. He was arraigned and he was tried. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that after the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, the counsel for the accused asked the court that instead of the four counts of grand larceny, the court consider instead charging the accused of four counts of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree. The trial court found that criminal facilitation in the fourth degree was a lesser included offense of Grand Larceny.

The trial court charged the man instead of four counts of criminal facilitation. The jury convicted him of the same charges and he was sentenced. The accused filed a motion to set aside the verdict of guilt on the ground that the lesser criminal offense of criminal facilitation is not a lesser included offense of grand larceny.

It was the contention of the accused that since the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the crime of criminal facilitation, it cannot have the power to charge the accused of that crime. However, the Supreme Court or Queens County found that since the accused himself moved that he be charged with the lesser included offense of criminal facilitation, he has waived his right to question the charge.

Published on: March 1, 2013

Court Determines if 18yr. Old Must Register as a Sex Offender Under SORA

by Stephen Bilkis

An 18 year old man was indicted in Florida for Sexual Battery in October 1997. When he was arrested and arraigned under the indictment, the 18-year old entered a nolo contendere plea (this means he did not plead guilty or not guilty but that he was not contending the indictment). A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said the trial court withheld a judgment of conviction and instead ordered that the 18-year old be placed under order of supervision. He was required to be under four years’ probation. The Florida trial court also ordered the 18-year old to register as a sex offender in the state of Florida. This sexual offender registry is the equivalent of New York’s sex offender registry under the Sex Offender Registration Act.

The 18-year old finished his four-year probation. In February 2006, the 18-year old wrote to the Criminal Justice Services of the state of New York to inform it that he was a registered sex offender in Florida who was contemplating on moving to New York.

The Criminal Justice Services sent him the sex offender registration forms by mail and sent him a letter requiring him to register under the SORA. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Board also recommended that he be registered as a sex offender. The Supreme Court in Kings County assessed his risk level as level 1.