New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

A man was indicted on three counts of robbery in the first degree, one count of attempted robbery in the first degree, five counts of grand larceny in the first degree, one count of assault in the first degree, one count of unlawfully carrying a loaded pistol concealed upon the person, three counts of assault in the second degree, and petit larceny.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the aforesaid man pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree (13th count), assault in the first degree (14th count), and unlawfully carrying a loaded pistol concealed upon the person (16th count).

On the date of sentencing, the District Attorney of Nassau County filed an Information charging that the man had previously been convicted of the felony of attempted rape in the second degree, which was admitted to be true.

Thereafter, sentence was pronounced for the three crimes to which he had pleaded guilty; and, in addition for being armed with a loaded pistol on the commission of the foregoing crimes. The first three of the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the last consecutively.
A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the convicted man has filed a petition before the Supreme Court of Clinton County contending that the last three sentences violated the Penal Law in that they constituted multiple punishments. The Supreme Court, without opinion, dismissed the petition.

The Appellate Division agreed with the Supreme Court on the appropriateness of all the sentences except that for assault, and accordingly reversed, remanding it to the County Court of Nassau County for resentencing. The convicted man did not appeal from the determination of the Appellate Division.

Thus, his present contentions with respect to the invalidity of his sentences for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon on his person and for being armed during the commission of the crimes are not properly before the court.

The single issue now presented is whether the imposition of concurrent sentences for assault in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree in this case violated the prohibition of double punishment contained in the Penal Law.

Under the rules, if separate and distinct acts were committed, and that they violated more than one section of the Penal Law, punishment for each of them would be proper although they arose out of a single transaction. It is also not open to dispute that if there were merely a single inseparable act violative of more than one statute, or if there were an act which itself violated one statute and was a material element of the violation of another, there would have to be a single punishment.

The lower court cases applying the foregoing criteria to the crimes of assault and robbery have held that the act which constitutes the element of force in the robbery may not be made the basis of consecutive punishment for assault. Courts have held that where defendant pointed a loaded revolver at certain persons and robbed them, there could not be consecutive sentences for both robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

In the case now before us the meager record will not permit us to determine precisely the acts of the defendant (convicted man) since there was no trial because he pleaded guilty. Only the indictment may guide us as to the acts constituting the crimes. From the plea of guilt thereto, we know that defendant admitted not only the act of attempting to rob and the assault incidental thereto, i.e., with intent to commit that felony, but also a separate act of aiming and discharging a loaded pistol with intent to kill.

The law provides that discharging a revolver with intent to kill a victim is not an essential element of the crime of robbery; and that an assault with intent to kill a human being is quite different from one with intent to commit a felony. The latter is an element of robbery, the former is not; it is only the former that is alleged in count 14 (charging assault) of the herein indictment. Had he been indicted in that count for assault with intent to commit a felony, the situation would have been different.

Here, one single act is not the basis of the two charges; they were separable and distinct and involved two different kinds of conduct, even though arising out of the same transaction. They were so treated in the counts to which defendant pleaded guilty.

Moreover, since the sentence on the assault count was made to run concurrently with the sentence on the attempted robbery count, which distinguishes the case from cases relied on by respondent, there was no multiple punishment in violation of the Penal Law in any event.
The contention that the practice of imposing concurrent sentences for included crimes is not uncommon in the courts; to say that it may not be done would cloud countless sentences and invite innumerable pointless applications. As already noted, and as the High Court have recognized, the United States courts sanction this practice, although it is true that there is no Federal counterpart of the applicable section. But section 1938 does not forbid convictions or concurrent sentences as such only punishment. When the shorter sentence runs concurrently with the longer, there is no punishment for the shorter; it does not inflict upon a defendant any additional restraint or detention. He is expressly protected from having the offenses count cumulatively in determining his status as a multiple offender. The claim of possible detriment to a defendant in a subsequent case of having a long list of sentences is not valid. If such were to be adopted, then there would nevertheless be a recital of all the defendant's criminal acts in a single sentence.

Here, the conviction of the defendant for assault in the first degree must stand; there is no issue as to its validity; the defendant pleaded guilty. All what is at issue is the proper sentence; the removal of a concurrent sentence from his record will in no way remove the mark or dim the fact of his conviction of the crime of assault with intent to kill.

Where a criminal act which is a composite of several included offenses is followed by a multiple count indictment, and convictions are obtained on more than one count, the imposition of concurrent sentences for lesser included offenses insures that the defendant will not go unpunished if there is an error in his conviction for the highest degree of offense resulting in an acquittal as to that count.

Whether you have been charged with theft, drug possession or sex crimes, it is important to speak with a lawyer for guidance. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation.

Nothing can be more painful when the ones who have done the sexual crime is one of our loved ones. It all makes it worse when the victims belong in our family too. This is what a New York sex crimes lawyer wants to share to us with this case of Orlando Roman. He was accused of bribing his ex-wife to not testify in court with regards to his case of abusing his own four year old kid. Janet Roman is the mother of the kid who filed a complaint to the police about his bribe offer to not testify about the sex abuse of their own child.

Roman was offered about $15,000 for the agreement to not testify in the grand jury hearing. She questioned first about the sex abuse and rape case but he did not say anything about it. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Roman said if the money be taken he would transfer to another state and move away from them. He almost promised that he would never be seen again as part of the incentive. He also said that the victim was just coached and that he did not do anything that have intentionally hurt the victim.

As per the findings of an expert Manhattan Criminal Lawyer, the conversation recorded would be heard out in a separate trial but it will not be admitted as part of the counts of child sex abuse whether it is consolidated or not. But such can take a big part too in the process of proving the accused guilty of the sexual abuse crime he is confronting. Money truly is played dirty just to be able to buy your freedom out or the justice that others deserve.

To go away from the victim and the family affected is not the solution to the crime that Orlando Roman has been accused of doing. It is such an unacceptable act to even abuse your own kid or any loved one and family member according to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer. This is one reason why sex crimes are considered to be one of the most sensitive types of cases to deal with in court and other legal proceedings.

This is not just because of the reason that terms are very sensitive and adult oriented, but because of the overall fact that it can sometimes involve our own loved ones in the case, especially when the kids are the victims of sexual abuse, rape, and endangering the welfare of a child. Hence, it is very important that we step ahead just in case we encounter such scenarios. And with such cases, we can depend much on the help and assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

All you have to do is contact them even if you are still in the phase of merely inquiring. It will not hurt if you would openly ask questions about any legal ordeal that you need to overcome especially when it is sex crime related. If you want to fight for your right and your freedom to live in peace, then it is a must to get a lawyer whom you can easily talk to and trust.

The case of Elliot Shapiro is an important case that a New York sex crime lawyer can present for you to fully understand the details of intricate sex crimes. He was convicted of abusing a minor and at the same time promoting prostitution. He was fighting for the fair trial of his rights thinking that they were actually violated. He was accused of sexually violating high school boys for 17 months with all the victims being under 17 years of age. During the trial, it was proven that the boys got money for it and that there was no physical harm imposed on them.

Police officers from the New Rochelle Police Department came out with a search warrant after hearing enough from a wire tapped procedure ordered by the court. They learned that two friends of Shapiro would be bringing in two teenagers who are male prostitutes so as to perform sexual acts for a fee. Another adult by the name of Brian Dowling is set to join them too. When they reached the home, they found Dowling, the defendant and two teenagers all naked in the second floor.

As per the New York criminal lawyer who researched on this case as well, Shomer and Shenn were guilty of promoting prostitution and risking the life of the two minors, aged 15 and 13. Their cases were tried separate from Shapiro. The young males attested that anal sex was performed on them while Shapiro reacted to this telling the court that he was just simply a man of weak sexual desires tempted by the two pimp friends. He wanted to establish the role that his options were limited at that time.

There was also a point raised by a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer that wiretapping requires warrants and cannot be installed just by the own prerogatives of the police officers. It should still be conforming to the Federal statutes of New York. It was allowed in this case since the crimes included are the ones being investigated about Shapiro. Overall, the purpose of proving the crime being done by the defendant can help in protecting the other minors living within the area of the community with whom Shapiro may choose as victims of sexual abuse too in the future.

The rights of Shapiro were not violated as how he perceives it to be for the result of the search and raid only proved what everyone was expecting. Reviewing it, the police officers found Shapiro with the teenage prostitute along with the other couple who were being talked about by the pimp friends over the phone. This then fulfilled successfully and justified the use of wiretapping Shapiro’s phone calls. This put an end to it all and brought justice to the community that Shapiro was somehow ruining already.

Sex crimes can be too hard to understand without the help of a reliable lawyer. Whether you have been charged with rape, kidnapping, or endangering the welfare of a child, call Stephen Bilkis & Associates. This is a great place to start your search with if you are looking for utmost assistance with such similarly related crimes that involve minors and sexual abuse. It is never too late when you have an ever supportive and knowledgeable lawyer to stand by you and fight for your rights all the way to the end. With such expert lawyers, every case is not just a triumphant moment but also a learning experience.

It may be common for anyone of us to hear or watch rape cases in the news but we never realize how hard it is to handle with the right legal procedurures. One case that was very complicated to assess and it involved three men as the ones who are making an appeal. The ones that were mentioned in the proceedings were Michael De Vito, Theodore Buckley and Gary Mandel. In rape cases like this one, the mental background and reliability of the one who is complaining is very important.

The alleged victim was contacted via phone by Mandel for a good number of times last April 4, 1975. It appears that their houses are just several blocks apart and that Mandel invited her to his house to discuss a fresh course at the Brooklyn College. She went to his house and after a short conversation at the kitchen, she was given a glass of water which she consumed but made her too dizzy to still hold consciousness. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the next thing she knew, she was already in the basement struggling against Mandel. Then came the other two, De Vito and Buckley, to the basement through a back door and with that the worst sexual things happened.

The victim running away half naked when she finally saw the opportunity. She hid in some bushes and wait till the alleged suspects left. She ran and knocked into another home which was owned by Lila and Murray Raber. The three denied all these and said that what happened was with the consent of the victim. They claim that she only reported and filed a complaint out of utmost humiliation she suffered from during the sexual activity when water balloons burst inside her bra.

According to a Queens Criminal Lawyer, at the end of the case, after all the evaluations and evidence presented, all three men involved as suspects of the sex crime were acquitted. They were not convicted of sodomy and rape according to the reports. There was no sexual abuse which happened especially after the medical examination of the alleged victim which showed there was no semen and even damage to the parts of her body which she reported were abused by the three guys. This made the corroboration request of all three crimes weak and the reason that she was just drugged during that time was proven heavily.

However, there are some points in the case which could have still been greatly explored like the background of the victim. The attorney of the victim was limited to only exploring the mental and emotional stability of the victim as per her records released by the South Oaks Hospital. At one point, there could have been really the consent from the female but still in a broader perspective, the three guys still sexually abused the victim even if it was just in the first degree due to the severe injuries the victim had in her body.

To report and go through the legal proceeding of sex crimes is not easy especially for its sensitivity. It is only an skilled lawyer who can help you out with these legal issues and guide you all the way back to the road of justice. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates and book an appointment with a lawyer from our legal team who can educate you well enough with all the information you need to know in cases of sex crimes.

It is common to find with any sex crimes that the offender appeals to the court of lessening the risk level category that they were assigned to in going through the treatment program for their benefit. This case of Allan Barnes, the offender,who takes issue to his being rated as a level three offender. It was clear that he never denied the physical injury he has done to his victim like scars and stitches on the victim’s lip and legs. Not to mention the memory problems she has suffered from due to the head injuries Allan inflicted too.

It was just a bit weird how he never denies this but keeps on telling the court that all these may have just been hearsay for the absence of convincing proof. It is more uncomfortable to unravel that despite his challenge on the judgment, he did not present any other version of the facts, at least his very own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said such proceedings are suggested by the court for the protection of the rest of the citizens of the community.

It is likely that a sex crime offender may reoffend again. The court does not deprive the offender to present any evidence that would not limit him in fighting for his own rights and for the greater interest of his liberty. When basing on the criminal background of the criminal, he has been an offender since his younger days charged with a burglary case. In Georgia, he was also once convicted of a drug possession way back in the early 80s. It was also interesting according to a New York child pornography lawyer who also studied this appeal that he was also once involved in a case for cruelty to animals.

It was discovered that the rape case was made after his release from his Georgia custody. The court basing it on these instances perceives that he is most likely to become a reoffender especially with having to commit a rape crime even after being released out of prison for another case. In Georgia, he committed possession of drugs while his rape crime was not associated with any substance abuse.

Another New York sex with minor defense lawyer also found out that Barne’s contention was based on his argument that he has been abstinent for quite a long time new. But this was just further dismissed with the lack of proper proof of the abstinence he was talking about. This should have been proved with proper and formal supervision from the right authorities. In the end, it was clear to everyone that there was enough evidence to show he deserved the level three ranking for sex crime offenders.

Sex crimes are handled best by the expert Bronx Criminal Lawyer, especially the ones who work for the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. With the help of our reliable legal team, you will not just be able to win your own fight but also help the society be free of these crime offenders which can put a lot of threat to the lives of women and children, most especially.

When you come in, we will provide you with vaulable legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. We also have offices location in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule your free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Sex crimes cases are the crimes that many wish would really go down in numbers these days. This is because majority of the victims of these cases are the women and the minors. This particular case is about Webster L. Chapman who was convicted of sex offenses that deal with a minor. The incidents happened last 2006 in the months of March and February. The victim involved was the cousin of the defendant who was 17 years old then. The rest of the convictions included vandalism acts in the home of Joan Osbourne who used to be the mother in law of Webster. It happened during the time when his former wife and three kids were still residing there.

According to the New York Criminal Lawyer who studied the case, there are no solid evidence presented for the convictions of rape he was accused of. The testimony of the victim did not straightly say that there were physical force dealt on her for it all started when she was just lying in bed and he started touching her in the most sensitive parts of her body. At first, the victim said that it was somehow consensual. But when the time came that she wanted to stop already, he forced himself on her still.

The victim also said to another NYC Criminal Lawyer who was part of the team that she has attempted to leave the house for a lot of times already but still returned on her own liking. She said that the accused can be way too loud and mean especially when it is under the influence of alcohol. There were also threats coming from Chapman on several occasions when she would refuse to have sex with her. If the court would just base its judgment from these testimonies, then it truly is not sufficient to win the case against the accused.

The victim also told a New York sex with minor defense lawyer that when she became drunk at one point, she ended up being in the room of Chapman where she first got into consensual sex again. But things changed when Chapman tried inserting a sex to in her most private part which she did not allow but still was forced on her. This could have been a solid testimony already but since the victim was still able to communicate despite her claim of being intoxicated was too weak for the case.

He also had threatened his ex-wife by cursing her and almost slitting her throat. It took one witness to attest all of these facts that he verbally abuses his wife. His roommate, Donald Palmer, also testified against him that he once told him of his plans to retaliate to his ex wife by spraying paint on the house of his mother in law, even if his own children are there. In the end, he was still found guilty of about 11 counts of the indictment.

You need not feel alone or scared if you happen to be a victim of a rape crimes. You can be sure to find a reliable lawyer fro the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. The advantage of getting a lawyer can be truly helpful not just in helping you win your case but also add to your learning of how you would defend your rights as a human being. You will feel assured with the assistance of such expert lawyers.

Sex crime violators are very rampant these days according to a New York Criminal Lawyer who once gathered surveys and studies about it. The factors that led to this are way too many to mention but what is important is that there are solutions and programs provided to help even the offenders to pay for what they have done or be treated if it was found out to be some kind of mental sickness. This is the same as the case here of Gonzalo Gonzales. He was fighting for his ability to complete the specific sex offender program set for him.

Based on the facts presented, it was last April 24, 2006 when the counselors from the correction program asked him to sign a form stating that he refused to take the said treatment which means failure of acknowledging his responsibility for the crime he was accused of. According to Gonzalez, he did not sign it for he never denied that responsibility for what he has done. He was very certain of himself that he did comply with the program.

The counselor Groge Pundy is responsible for screening and interviewing the sex offender program candidates. According to him who was further interviewed by Queens Criminal Lawyer, Gonzales did not take the program while still being in New York and under the custody of the state’s correctional services. One of the main requirements for the program is that the offender must be responsible to pay what’s due for the crimes he has done. If in the screening process alone, the responsibility is denied, then this just means refusal to enter the program as well.

Mr. Pundt interviewed Gonzales last April 24, 2006 about his willingness for the program. With the many offenders that Pundt interviews everyday, it is understandable why it was so hard to recall already. But the proof of the results of the interview concludes it all – that the offender denies responsibility for his crimes which are rape and sodomy. The court believes that this part of the screening process if important so that they can be sure the inmate would be receptive to all the therapy that he will go through.

It has no other purpose but to benefit well the inmate involved. And the court in this matter believed in the documents presented by Mr. Pundt. There may have been good time allowance already given to Gonzales but still he has denied such credits when he could have responded and cooperated with the orders of the court. Hence, in the end, the court found his contentions to be without sense after thorough review of what the offender is trying to prove. It decided for his petition to just be simply dismissed.

Every lawyer from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates is capable of helping you out with any of these very sensitive cases. If you want your sex crimes cases to be successful in court, then do not risk in letting just about anyone to handle your case.

Brian Thomas was charged with two counts of first degree rape, two counts of first degree sodomy, two counts of first degree sexual abuse and one count of second degree burglary. Specifically, Mr. Thomas was accused of unlawfully entering a dwelling with the intent to commit rape and sodomy and subsequently compelling a female victim to engage in sexual intercourse by force. On April 21, 1988, Mr. Thomas plead guilty to one count of attempted rape in the first degree and received a sentence of 7 ½ to 15 years.

The prosecution filed a motion with the Schoharie County Court to obtain a sample of Mr. Thomas’s blood in order to test it for the AIDS virus. Mr. Thomas’ criminal defense attorney opposed the motion on the grounds that it effectively constituted an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

On August 14, 1978, Mr. Thomas was convicted in Nassau County Court of first degree attempted rape. He received a maximum sentence of ten years and was released on April 7, 1987.

In the current case, evidence was presented to the Grand Jury which established that Mr. Thomas had repeated sexual contact with the victim and exposed her to his bodily fluids. The victim was subsequently concerned about the possibility that she may have been exposed to the AIDS virus following the forcible rape and sodomy committed by Mr. Thomas.

Section 240.40 of New York Criminal Procedure allows that the court may order a defendant to provide non-testimonial evidence when an indictment is pending, including the taking samples of blood, hair or other bodily fluids or tissue in such a manner that does not involve substantial intrusion or serious risk of physical injury.

The Schoharie County Court noted that the AIDS virus is spread through the transfer of bodily fluids and that a blood analysis can determine whether someone is infected with the virus or not. The court also noted that the instance of AIDS was higher among the state prison population versus the general population.

Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, in Mr. Thomas’ case, the court held that the prosecution’s request for a blood sample was reasonable and allowable within the framework of constitutional law.

On April 18, 1988, the U.S. Senate approved mandatory AIDS testing for individuals convicted of drug and sex crimes. The measure allowed for results to be confidential but for records to be closed to prison wardens and/or the victims of sex crimes, including rape, sodomy and sexual abuse.

Based on the Senate’s decision, the court argued that the victim had a right to know whether Mr. Thomas may have exposed her to the AIDS virus through unlawful sexual contact. Furthermore, the intrusion to Mr. Thomas in collecting a blood sample was viewed as minimal compared to the mental trauma and anxiety suffered by the victim.
The court also noted that if Mr. Thomas tested positive for the AIDS virus, he could be charged with a count of depraved indifference murder.

Subsequently, the court granted the prosecution’s motion to obtain a blood sample from Mr. Thomas and noted that the results should be disclosed to the victim and the New York State Department of Correctional Services, if he tested positive.

Mr. Thomas’ criminal defense attorney acted correctly in objecting to the prosecution’s request in an attempt to protect his client’s rights. While his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, he made every effort to act as an advocate for Mr. Thomas.

If you or someone you love has been charged with sexual abuse, a gun crime , or a theft crime you will need the help of skilled legal counsel. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in assisting individuals who are facing trial. We are committed to aggressively defending your rights and working hard to prove your innocence.

Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW to speak with one of our criminal defense experts or visit one of our New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t let a conviction for a sex crime ruin your life. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the legal representation you need to fight sexual offense charges.

Rape cases are very sensitive and contain intricate in details. It requires a lot of evidence and consistency in the chain of events involved in the case. This goes the same for this case against Santos Quinto who was accused of raping a 19 year old who eventually got pregnant. The victim said that she first had sex with her full consent with her high school classmate in November 8, 2002. But after five years, when she was 19 years old already, she filed another police report that her step grandfather who is the accused mentioned was the one who raped her.

She explained to a New York Criminal Lawyer that it happened three times way back in 2002 but the problem arises with her decision to have not reported it when the crime was still fresh then. Even if this delay was questioned, such extension is still permitted in some circumstances especially for some sex crimes that are made to innocent children. A medical report that the victim went through revealed that she was pregnant.

According to the police and Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer who questioned her, her first statement stated that she had sex with her classmate and that she just said she was raped because she was afraid that her parents might get angry. At that time, the case came to a close. But by 2007, when she turned 19, she reported that it was her stepgrandfather who raped her for three consecutive times on different dates within the year of 2002. She recalled the story that it happened when she used to live with her grandma and cousins. She was abused three times inside of their own home.

She also confessed that she told her grandmother but she refused to believe her. She did not say anything about the incident when she learned that she was pregnant because the old man threatened her. In such cases of sex crimes extension of time frame is allowed considering that the child is not yet on the mature state of mind if she is younger than 18. Hence, the court can wait up until five years which is applicable with this particular case.

It can be really sad that sex crimes of today revolve around incest. It is devastating to find out that the more responsible family members are the ones who actually abuse the little ones in the family. So the court fully understands how threatened such victims are especially when their abusers are coming from their own familial relations. And if the consensual sex between her and the classmate was really true, it still cannot be deemed as a criminal offense under the Penal Law. One thing is true with this case report. It is important that the one accused should be punished accordingly.

It is not good news to hear that there are families who suffer from such troubles. But in case your very own is going through the same ordeal or you know someone else’s family who does, then do not hesitate to seek the complete assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You can be assured that your rights will be protected and your case will receive the attention it deserves.

Brian Fielding was charged with and convicted of multiple counts of sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. His criminal defense attorney challenged his conviction with the New York Court of Appeals, on the grounds that the testimony of his victims was insufficient to prove his guilt in connection with the sex crimes.
Specifically, Mr. Fielding argued that the testimony did not meet the corroboration requirement as set forth under New York law. Section 60.22 of the CPL and Section 130.16 of the Penal Law preclude a conviction for sex crimes based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice or victim.

The court of appeals noted that the corroboration requirement for consensual sodomy is the same as that needed for accomplice testimony. The court held that since Mr. Fielding’s victims were minor children no older than 14, the sex offenses could not be considered consensual within the scope of the statutory requirements.

Under Section 60.22, an accomplice is defined as any witness to a criminal act who also participated in the crime as demonstrated by the evidence. This rule was created to expand on older laws, which classified an accomplice as a principal actor in the crime or an accessory before the fact. Under the new law, a person could be charged as an accomplice, regardless of whether he or she had a substantial role in the crime or acted as an accessory. The person would, however, have to face some type of legal penalty for their participation in the crime to qualify as an accomplice.

In Mr. Fielding’s case, the sexual abuse victims were children under the age of 17 and were therefore considered incapable of offering consent under New York law. As such, the appeals court held that they could not have been subject to any type of criminal charge for their participation in the sodomy or other sex acts that occurred. Therefore, the court found that no complicity was present on the part of the children.

Under Section 130.15 of the Penal Law, a sex offender could not be convicted solely upon a victim’s uncorroborated testimony. The court found that this rule did not apply in Mr. Fielding’s case since no less than seven boys testified that he had committed inappropriate sexual acts with them on different occasions. In summary, the court of appeals held that since the victims did not qualify as accomplices under the statutory definition, there was no reason to discredit their testimony as uncorroborated. Furthermore, the testimony itself connected the sex crimes to one another and to Mr. Fielding. As such, the court chose to affirm his conviction.

In Mr. Fielding’s case, his New York criminal defense lawyer attempted to appeal his conviction for sodomy and sexual abuse, albeit unsuccessfully. Navigating the legal system can be a complex and intimidating process and one that should not be undertaken alone.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates offers criminal defense services to individuals in the New York area who’ve been charged with sex crimes, including statutory rape, and stalking. If you or someone you love has been arrested for committing an inappropriate sex act, you need to call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to discuss your case. You can also visit one of our New York area offices to speak with one of our criminal defense experts in person.

A sex crime conviction can have devastating consequences but you don’t have to face the judge and jury alone. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the experienced legal representation you need to protect your rights.

In 1985, Juan Santos was convicted of one count of first degree rape, one count of second degree rape, four counts of first degree sodomy and four counts of second degree sodomy. The charges stemmed from claims brought by Mr. Santos’ two stepdaughters, who claimed that he forcibly raped and sodomized them on multiple occasions. Following his conviction, he was sentenced to a combined term of 25 to 50 years.

Mr. Santos’ criminal defense attorney filed a motion to set aside the verdict and this request was granted in 1991. The New York County Supreme Court was unable to determine why the conviction was overturned but the prosecutor in the case claimed they had arranged a plea agreement in which Mr. Santos would plead guilty to one count of first degree rape. In exchange, he received a sentence of 5 to 15 years, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

In September 2008, the court received a letter from the New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders concerning Mr. Santos’ risk level. The person who drafted the letter, Board Examiner Floyd Epps, stated that Mr. Santos had raped, sodomized, sexually abused and threatened the two victims over a period of several years. The letter also indicated that Mr. Santos claimed the charges were false and that his wife had encouraged the two girls to make up the story because she was angry that he was having an affair. In addition, Mr. Santos has denied committed the sex crimes he was charged with.

According to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer, Mr. Santos was released on parole in May 1994 and in January 1997, returned to prison because of a violation. He was released again in April 1997 and incarcerated again in 2003 because of another violation. In 2004, he was released again and his supervision period ended. At the time of his initial parole, he was classified as a Level Three sex offender. Following his last release from prison, he earned both a bachelors and master’s degree and refrained from engaging in criminal activities. Based on these facts, Mr. Santos filed a motion to have his sex offender status downgraded to a level two classification.

The court ordered the prosecution to prepare a new risk assessment evaluation to detemine Mr. Santos’ threat level. This document assigns a specific number of points to certain factors which when combined, provide a score which is used to assess the potential for future reoffense. After completing the new assessment, Mr. Santos’ score was determined to be 115, which was five points over the minimum score required for a Level Three classification. Based on this result, he then filed a motion to have his risk level downgraded to Level Two, citing the positive changes in his lifestyle following his release from prison. Both the prosecutor and the Board of Examiners opposed this motion.

The New York County Supreme Court was charged with determining whether to grant Mr. Santos’ request. Specifically, the court looked at the guidelines created by the Sex Offender Registration Act and the factors incorporated as part of the risk assessment document. Individuals with a score of 0 to 70 are classified as Level One offenders; a score of 75 to 105 points leads to a Level Two classification; and Level 3 offenders have a score of 110 to 300 points. The higher the score, the greater the perceived risk that a sex offender will commit subsequent sex crimes. Mr. Santos’ criminal defense attorney did not challenge the validity of the risk assessment toll but merely questioned whether the scoring system had certain limitations that should be considered in determining whether to upgrade or downgrade an offender.

The court acknowledged that Mr. Santos’ score was based on both objective and subjective determinations, rather than a psychiatric evaluation. The court also noted that the points designated for each factor, including the use of violence, the age of the victim and the type of contact involved, did not appear to have any actuarial basis. Furthermore, the court found that the factors used to calculate risk level were seemingly arbitrary in some circumstances and that the timing of an offense could cause the score to increase dramatically. Finally, the court held that the risk assessment tool was outdated and failed to account for new scientific research findings regarding sex offender recidivism rates and risk factors. However, the court is generally not allowed to depart from the findings of the risk assessment tool unless certain aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.

In Mr. Santos’ case, the court held that downgrading his classification to a Level Two offender was justified based on his actions after his final stay in prison in 2004. The court argued that there was clear and convincing evidence of his reduced threat level which support the change in status, despite the score determined by the risk assessment tool. The court did agree that Mr. Santos’ failure to acknowledge guilt for his crimes should be counted against him in calculating his risk score but that that fact alone did not support the Level Three classification. The court also acknowledged that Mr. Santos had not been a model citizen after his 1994 release and that the fact that there was no evidence of unlawful sexual contact with a minor did not mean that these types of offenses had not occurred during that period. However, based on the perceived recidivism risk, the court supported his status being downgraded to Level Two.

Being labeled a sex offender can have serious and long-lasting repercussions and make it difficult to become a productive member of society. Fortunately, Mr. Santos was able to move in a more positive direction after his release from prison, which merited the change in his sex offender status.

If you or a loved one is battling a sex crimes charge, you need the aid of an experienced legal counsel to protect your rights. The law office Stephen Bilkis and Associates is available to assist criminal defendants in the New York area who are charged with rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and other types of unlawful sexual contact. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to get the legal help you need. You can also discuss your case in person by visiting one of the firm’s New York are offices. Don’t hesitate to contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the help you need to fight a sex crime charge.

A jury convicted David L. Perkins of numerous crimes arising out of his conduct in providing alcohol to and engaging in sex acts with his daughter’s teenage friends. County Court had imposed the maximum sentence, an entire sum of 36 years in prison.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, Perkins asserted that there was legally insufficient evidence to convict him of sexual abuse because the court had failed to establish that the victim was physically helpless but the court asserted that the victim’s testimony that she blacked out and “was so drunk that she didn’t know what was going on,” was sufficient to establish the presence of physical helplessness.

A Booklyn Criminal Lawyer who witnessed the trial said that each victim testified consistently and with particularity about the sexual acts committed against them by Perkins and to being provided with alcohol at Perkin’s house. The court said that contrary to Perkin’s testimony, the record clearly revealed that the victims were under the age of 17 at the time of the crimes. The court also stressed that although some of the victims could not recall the precise dates or times of the incidents, “any consistencies regarding date and time did not render all of their testimony incredible as a matter of law, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s resolution of this credibility issues”.

A friend of one of the victims, Nicole Garrison, testified that the victim complained that Perkins had sexually assaulted her the day after the incident occurred and at the victim’s first opportunity. While such out-of-court statements are generally inadmissible to bolster a witness testimony, evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place.

Perkins also asserted that his statement to the police, in which he admitted to providing alcohol to his daughter’s friends but denied, having sexual contact with the girls, was involuntarily made and should have been suppressed. The court replied that after Perkins voluntarily went to the police station for questioning, he was advised of his Miranda rights, offered food and drink, and did not request any lawyer or state that he wished to remain silent. He then discussed, without incident of any kind, various allegations of underage drinking in his home and signed the statement.

Upon appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Perkins lawyers find that the County Court erred in imposing consecutive terms upon certain of his convictions. They said that Penal Law provides that concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other”. With respect to the first victim, Perkins was convicted of two counts of sexual misconduct, sodomy in the third degree and rape in the third degree based upon an act of oral sex and sexual intercourse, as well as unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree (for providing alcohol to the victim) and endangering the welfare of a child (for providing alcohol and subjecting the victim to oral sex and sexual intercourse). The higher court said that these convictions were based on only one act of deviate sexual intercourse, one act of sexual intercourse and one instance of providing alcohol. It stated that the remaining convictions “comprise separate, distinct and independently punishable offenses” and thus, according to a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, consecutive sentences were warranted.

Encountering cases like this one needs you to be with an experienced and loyal lawyer by your side when you are in a trial room. Skilled legal counsel will be there always at your side and fight you through in every obstacle in the courtroom.

An established law firm, Stephen Bilkis and Associate is situated around the New York Metropolitan area.

Sexual abuse can be everywhere, it might be occurring in our own home. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, on September 5, 1995, the defendant was convicted by the County Court of crimes of sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. During trial, the 13-year-old victim testified that prior to the commission of the crimes, the defendant, a 31-year-old live in companion of the victim’s aunt, told her that he wanted to rape her and have a baby with her. She further testified that he threatened to kill her whole family if she revealed his feelings about her to anyone. The victim indicated that she believed these threats and, for that reason, did not immediately report the crimes.

Based on the New York Sex Crime Lawyer, the defendant' initial argument on his appeal was that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts of the crime of sexual abuse is not supported by legally sufficient evidence in that there is no proof of forcible compulsion. As relevant here, ‘Forcible Compulsion’ means to compel by either use of physical force; or a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or another person. The higher court held that given the victim’s young age and the defendant's dominance over her by reason of his age and relationship with her aunt, the jury could have reasonably inferred that he accomplished the sexual contact through the use of threats that placed the victim in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or members of her family.

Another argument that Archer had pointed out was that he was discriminated by the admission of evidence regarding prior bad acts of sexual nature that he purportedly perpetrated upon the victim. Generally, a Long Island Criminal Lawyer said, such evidence may not be offered to show the defendant's bad character or his inclination toward crime but may be admitted if the acts help establish some element of the crime under investigation. This exception was said to be applicable in this case since the challenged testimony was admitted to establish that he engaged in a course of conduct that was likely to be injurious to the physical or moral of the victim, an essential element of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child that was charged in two counts of indictment.

The trial panel produced a psychotherapist who presented testimony pertaining to child sex abuse syndrome. He said that the Supreme Court have held such testimony admissible provided it is limited to explaining behavior that might appear unusual to a lay juror and is not used to show that the alleged victim’s behavior was consistent with patterns of behavior exhibited by victims of proven sexual abuse. The Court held that, the prosecutor posed a hypothetical question to the expert that subsumed the evidence in this case and asked if the hypothetical victim’s behavior was unusual with respect to child sex abuse syndrome. Further, the lower court gave limiting instructions in its charge that the expert could not render an opinion on the issue of whether the victim was sexually abused.

Upon the defendant's conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, he was sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 7 years. Taking into account his previous conviction of a sex-related crime involving this victim and the predatory nature of the crimes that carry a high risk of recidivism, the higher court did not consider the sentence harsh or excessive.

Getting involved in a lawsuit carries a lot of problems. Skilled legal counsel will see to it that you will see through it with ease. Stephen Bilkis and Associates are here to provide legal counsel and ensure your rights are protected. With offices located throughout the New York Metropolitan Area.

The Tennessee State Board of Medical Examiners in TN, unanimously voted to reinstate the medical license of a doctor who was recently acquitted of rape charges. The State Board had previously suspended the doctor’s license after the rape charges were filed against him.

Four male patients, all in their twenties, had accused the doctor of performing unnecessary medical procedures during exams in 2008. A New York Criminal Attorney also confirmed that each of these male patients were all exhibiting symptoms of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and the doctor had performed these procedures on their rectums and genitals.

Throughout the doctor’s rape trial, members of his staff had testified on his behalf stating that the alleged rapes did not occur, nor was there anything improper being done as there was always a staff member in the room with the doctor and his patient during these procedures.

Another TN doctor had also testified that had the doctor not performed the medical procedures that he did on the male patients, that he would have been negligent.

Although the doctor was acquitted and has had his medical license reinstated, this is not his first run-in with the legal system, explained a Westchester County Criminal Lawyer. In the 1990s, his medical license was suspended for one year while he faced similar charges in Pennsylvania. This case occurred while the doctor was working as a resident. One charge was dismissed by the judge and the other case the jury acquitted him.

The doctor patient relationship is very complex. There may be few other instances that anyone would allow someone outside of those they are the most intimate with to not only see the most private parts of their bodies, but also to touch those parts as well. Some folks may be comfortable with that, while others will cringe at the very thought of it. If you experience the least amount of discomfort, you should speak with your physician and if necessary request that a staff member be present during that examination. The discomfort may also be experienced by your physician, who as in this case learned from a past experience and had a staff member present during the more personal exams.

Continue reading "Doctor’s License Reinstated Following Rape Acquittal " »

A convicted sex offender on trial for kidnapping and raping an 11-year-old girl and keeping her captive for 18 years was expected to give a guilty plea – until his lawyer asserted the grand jury was improperly selected and acted inappropriately.
The public defender in this case is defending her clients against charges of rape, kidnapping, and other charges in an amended indictment, and she urged them to plead not-guilty.
The public defender did not elaborate on her claims regarding the jury, but did say she had questions about the racial makeup and the geographical makeup of the jury that indicted the couple on trial – the kidnapper and his wife. They were indicted mainly for the kidnapping of the 11-year-old girl, who is now 30. The public defender has been instructed to outline her objections in writing.
A second attorney, the one representing the kidnapper’s wife, had earlier said he expected the kidnapper to plead guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison.
The public defender was understandably bothered by that.
“He shouldn’t have been speaking for [my client]. He should speak for his client.”
The wife’s attorney said he did not know about the public defender’s plan until the day before she made her assertions.
The district attorney plans to continue with the trial and expects the grand jury’s decision to be upheld.
“My responsibility is to see that these two are held accountable for the enormity of their actions,” he explained. “We are determined to do that.”
The girl at the heart of the trial was kidnapped from her street in June 1991 as she walked to a school bus stop. During her imprisonment, she bore two daughters, now 13 and 16, to her kidnapper. All three of them were kept in a backyard compound of tents and sheds. They had never been to school or seen a doctor in during the entire period.
The kidnapper and his wife confessed everything and even seemed to want to spare their victim and her daughters from testifying. They were originally charged with 18 counts of kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment, child pornography, and committing lewd acts on a child.

Continue reading "Guilty Plea From Convicted Sex Offender Thought Likely in Kidnapping Case" »