New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
This is a case for appeal being heard in the Third Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the State of New York. Mark S. is the appellant of the case and the State of New York is the respondent. Mark S. is appealing two orders that were made by the Supreme Court. The orders found the appellant to be to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to treatment in a secure facility.
Case Background
The defendant has an extensive criminal and psychiatric history that includes being convicted for two rapes and forcibly touching three different females. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he was charged with third degree rape, third degree sodomy, and endangering the welfare of a child by having sexual relations with a girl who was less that 17 years old in June of 2003. The defendant states that the sex with the young girl was consensual and he thought that she was 17, even though he had been told that she was younger. He pled guilty to the third degree rape charge in May of 2004 to satisfy all of the charges that were made against him. He was sentenced to five months in jail and ten years of probation.
While the defendant was on probation in October of 2004, he was charged with forcibly touching and forcibly grabbing the breasts and vagina of an 18 year old girl who worked for him at his drywall business. For this charge he entered an Alford plea and received two months in jail.
In December of 2004 a hearing was held and it was determined that the defendant was a risk level III sexual offender. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that during this same month the defendant was charged with first degree rape for an incident where he went with a friend to a girl’s apartment and held her down and raped her.
He was released for parole in December of 2006, but this was revoked a few months later when he was charged with numerous instances of violating the conditions of his release, including exchanging texts with a woman, viewing erotic content of women, and having prohibited contact with women.
Mental Abnormality Hearing
Before the defendant was released from prison, the petitioner began a Mental Hygiene hearing in Dutchess County, where the defendant was incarcerated. The court determined at this time that there was probable cause to believe that the defendant was a sexual offender that needed civil management.
The court ordered that the defendant be placed in a secure treatment facility upon his release from prison upon a trial. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the proceedings moved to Clinton County where the respondent waived his right to a jury trial. The judge in the case determined that the defendant suffers from a mental abnormality.
Case Discussion
The appellant argues that the ruling should be appealed as there was evidence provided in the hearing that should not have been admitted. However, a Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said when reviewing the Mental Hygiene Law it clearly states that the psychiatric examiners will be given full access to all of the defendant’s clinical, medical, criminal and other records and reports.
After reviewing the facts of this case it is felt that the Supreme Court did not abuse their discretion and that they correctly ruled in this matter. The motion for appeal is denied.
At Stephen Bilkis & Associates we offer free consultations to those visiting our offices for the first time. We are happy to discuss your legal matter with you to help you determine what your best course of action would be. We have several offices located throughout the city of New York for your convenience. Contact us today to set up an appointment to come in your legal matter.