Articles Posted in Suffolk County

Published on:

A man moved for an examination of the stenographic minutes from a grand jury proceeding for the purpose of determining whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charge contained in the indictment and whether the legal instructions given to the grand jury were sufficient. He also seeks dismissal of the charges on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence or for other defects in the proceedings.

The man stands charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), a class E felony. Based on records, the felony status of the crime is based on a predicate conviction for driving a motor vehicle with in the violation of vehicle and traffic law, an unclassified misdemeanor.

The incident occurred one evening where a state officer’s attention was drawn to the man’s automobile because it was moving slowly. He estimated that the driver of the vehicle was driving about 25 miles per hour in a 30-mile per hour zone during the late evening when no traffic was present and the roads were clear and dry. The officer followed the vehicle and testified that the man was going about 20 miles per hour in the 30-mile per hour zone. At some point he verified the speed of the vehicle using radar. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man consistently maintained the same speed up hill and downhill, including a steep hill, until he pulled over at the direction of the officer. He also testified that the man was driving on the right-hand side of the road. The man further testified that he pulled him over solely because of his driving. He also testified in saying that driving ten miles per hour below the limit is considered impeding traffic. The district attorney however did not reprimand the grand jury on the witness in advising on the law.

Published on:

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:

The government is appealing the sentence of only 55 months for the defendant for being a felon in the possession of a firearm. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the government challenges the determination from the Supreme Court that the defendant was not an armed career criminal. Furthermore, the government states that the prior convictions of the defendant for first degree possession of marijuana were serious drug offenses and should have been ruled as such by the court.

Court Discussion and Decision

The question before the court is whether or not the prior conviction of the defendant for marijuana possession in an amount that is more than for personal use is sufficient to be considered a serious drug offense as listed under the ACCA.

Published on:

The appellant was convicted by a jury on the charges of possession of marijuana possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The appellant is appealing the convictions on two grounds. First, he states that the evidence in the case is insufficient for the conviction. Second, he argues that the district court made an error by allowing certain past marijuana dealings involving his brothers be introduced as evidence.

Case Facts

The appellant rant a service station. According to a co-conspirator the appellant told him to load almost 2000 pounds of marijuana. The marijuana was owned by the appellant’s brother. The contraband was in burlap sacks and was stored along with the truck that it was to be loaded onto in a shed about 20 miles from the station.

Published on:

Seven men were grouped together outside a house. They were talking loudly together and drinking. One of the neighbors called the police and so two uniformed police officers were dispatched to the scene. The police officers had their police badges and did not have their guns drawn.

As they were speaking with the group of seven men, one of the men stood up and pulled up his pants by his waistband and walked away in the direction of the house. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the man adjusted his pants, a small plastic bag fell from his pant leg. The police officer saw the plastic bag and it was a resealable bag contained dried herbs. The police officers seized the plastic bag from the ground and smelled it and they thought it was marijuana. Subsequent testing revealed it to be marijuana as suspected by the police officers (marijuana possession).

They followed the man who had gone into the house. The police officers knocked on the door and the residents of the house opened the door to the police officers and let the police officers in to the house. When the police officers went into the house, they noticed that a group of men were also drinking. Their bottled alcoholic beverages were contained in a cooler which lay open on the floor.

Published on:

Respondent inmates brought this class action in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of numerous conditions of confinement and practices in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federally operated short-term custodial facility in New York City designed primarily to house pretrial detainees for federal criminal offense. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the District Court, on various constitutional grounds, enjoined, the practice of housing, primarily for sleeping purposes, two inmates in individual rooms originally intended for single occupancy (“double-bunking”); enforcement of the so-called “publisher-only” rule prohibiting inmates from receiving hard-cover books that are not mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores; the prohibition against inmates’ receipt of packages of food and personal items from outside the institution; the practice of body-cavity searches of inmates following contact visits with person from outside institution; and the requirement that pretrial detainees remain outside their rooms during routine inspections by MCC officials. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings, holding with respect to the “double-bunking” practice that the MCC had failed to make a showing of “compelling necessity” sufficient to justify such practice.

The issue in this case is whether the constitutional rights of the inmates has been violated because of the conditions of confinement and practices imposed by the MCC, a facility designed to house a pre-trial detainees who committed federal criminal offense.

The Court held that, “double-bunking” practice does not deprive pretrial detainees of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.

Published on:

A man broke into and entered a dwelling house. Once inside, he committed grand larceny by taking away from the premises properties belonging to the owner of the dwelling house which amounted to more than one hundred dollars.

The prosecutor was charged under an information with two crimes: the breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny; and grand larceny. The man pleaded not guilty and he was tried before a jury. He was later convicted by that jury for the two crimes of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trial court judge sentenced the man to imprisonment of two years for the grand larceny and one year for the breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, both sentences to be served concurrently.

The man appealed the conviction and the sentences imposed upon him. The sole ground of his appeal was that he should not have been charged, tried, convicted or sentenced to two separate crimes of breaking and entering to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. He claims that the grand larceny should be comprehended in the one charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny because the grand larceny was just an element or a facet of the crime of breaking and entering.

Published on:

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case of appeal. The appellant is J.L., who is appealing a verdict that was made by a jury in the Supreme Court of Bronx County on the 19th of March, 1984. This verdict convicted the defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Case Background

The appeal in this case is made by the defendant as a result of a jury trial. A hearing testimony was held and took place over a period of four days. The jury commenced into deliberations at close to 12 p.m. on February 6, 1984. After deliberations and a rereading of some of the testimony of the case, the jury went to their hotel for the night at 11 p.m.

Published on:

This case involves two federal prescriptions: the one-year limitation period imposed on federal habeas corpus petitioners by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1); and the rule that pleading amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading when both the original plea and the amendment arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent was convicted of murder and robbery in California state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. His current application for federal habeas relief centers on two alleged trial-court errors, both involving the admission of out-of-court statements during the prosecutor’s case in chief but otherwise unrelated. Respondent had made inculpatory statements during pretrial police interrogation. He alleged that those statements were coerced, and that their admission violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He also alleged that the admission of a videotape recording of testimony of a prosecution witness violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

Respondent’s conviction was affirmed on appeal and became final on August 12, 1997. Under the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1), he had until August 12, 1998, to file a habeas petition in federal court. On May 8, 1998, in a timely filed habeas petition, respondent asserted his Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of the videotaped prosecution witness testimony, but did not then challenge the admission of his own pretrial statements. On January 28, 1999, over five months after the August 12, 1998 expiration of AEDPA’s time limit and eight months after the court appointed counsel to represent him, respondent filed an amended petition asserting a Fifth Amendment objection to admission of his pretrial statements. In response to the State’s argument that the Fifth Amendment claim was time barred, respondent asserted the rule that pleading amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading when both the original plea and the amendment arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth . . . in the original pleading,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2). Because his Fifth Amendment and Confrontation Clause claims challenged the constitutionality of the same criminal conviction, respondent urged, both claims arose out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.”

Published on:

This is a matter of an application made by the petitioner Ronald M. in regard to a judgment that was filed in the Franklin County Clerks office on the 29th of January, 2008. The respondent in the case is Brian F. who is the Commissioner for the NYS Department of Correctional Services. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Franklin County.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on the 21st of November, 2006, the petitioner was sentenced in the Suffolk County Court as a second felony offender. His sentence was set at five years with two years of post release supervision. This sentence was for his conviction of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance (drug possession).

Contact Information