Published on:

Defendant Charged with Kidnapping and Rape

This case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court in Queens County, part one. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case involves the plaintiff, the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Theodore Rhodes. Rhodes is being represented by Anthony Marra of New York City, Bob Finkin, and Kew Gardens. The plaintiff has Benjamin J. Jacobson, the Assistant District Attorney for counsel from the office of Frank D. O’Connor, the District Attorney of Queens County. The judge that is overseeing the case is J. Irwin Shapiro.

Motion

The defendant, Theodore Rhodes, has made a motion for a resentence in his case.

Case Background

The defendant along with two other individuals were indicted for the crimes of kidnapping, rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and the intent to commit the crime of rape.

The court hearing started on the 27th of May and continued on to the 28th of May. On the 28th of May, the defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty for both the crimes of intent to commit the crime of rape and to assault in the second degree.

After the hearing, according to the requirements set by Penal Law section 2189-a, the defendant was committed to the Kings County Hospital to be observed. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court received the observation report from the hospital and based on the findings sentenced the defendant of a sentence of one day to life based on the provisions of the Penal law section 243. Currently, the defendant is serving out this sentence in prison.

Argument for Resentencing

The defendant has made this motion for resentencing after receiving an affidavit from his trial counsel that states that after carefully reviewing the psychiatric report from the hospital after his plea of guilty has determined that there was no information that indicated the defendant was a sex deviant psychologically. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the affidavit concludes that the purpose of the punishment that is provided in the Penal law code 243 is intended to allow sexual deviants to receive the psychiatric treatment needed to be returned to society when a parole board determines that the defendant is cured of any sexual illness and is no longer a threat to society. The defendant argues that the sentence that was imposed on him did not conform to the intent and purpose of the punishment as described by the Penal laws.

Court Discussion and Decision

As the defendant is already serving his sentence from the case there is no way for it to be reconsidered at this point, unless it is found to e irregularly or illegally imposed. In this particular case there is no such infirmity.

Even if we assume that the defendant’s argument is correct and that there was no evidence in the psychiatric report to conclude that he was a sex deviant, this court would not be bound by this determination. Rather, the court would have to look at his own findings for the outlook of the defendant in regard to sexual behavior.

After reviewing the facts of the case, the motion for resentencing is denied as a sentence may not be changed after it is being served unless it is felt that the sentence was wrongfully imposed. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said in this case, the law is not only in regard to whether or not a person is a sexual deviant, but also a punishment for the laws that were broken in the case.

If you are in any type of legal situation and need advice, contact the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our offices are located in New York City. You may contact us and set up a free consultation at any time.

Contact Information