Published on:

Defense Contends Criminal Possession of a Weapon Charge is Not Warranted

This is a case for appeal being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Richard Coluccio. He is being represented by Gino Josh Singer, from New York City. The respondent in the matter is the People of the State of New York. Kerriann Kelly is the counsel for the respondent. She is from the office of James M. Catterson Jr., District Attorney.

Appeal

The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Judge Rohl, made the original judgment in the case on the first of November, 1988. The appellant has been convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a weapon, both in the second degree. The defendant pled guilty in the matter.

Court Discussion and Decision

The court orders that the amended judgment will be affirmed.

The defendant argues that his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (gun crime) was insufficient. He states that he did not express intent or admit facts that would allow intent to be inferred in the matter.

The court disagrees with this argument made by the defendant. By simply making a guilty plea in the case the defendant forfeited his right to review any defects within the matter.

His plea of guilty in his case allowed him to receive a lesser mandatory sentencing in the case. It is seen in the minutes of the plea that the defendant acknowledged the fact that he had bargained for his disposition and after consulting with his attorney decided to make a plea of guilty. This plea allowed him to avoid being convicted on all counts by a trial and therefore lessoned the potential sentence that he would receive.

It is felt that he is now complaining about the disposition that he instated that was a benefit to him in this particular case.

Disregarding the above facts of the case, it is still felt that the plea allocation was adequate. The defendant must realize that it is not the job of the court to recite all of the elements of the crime that he has pled guilty to. Additionally, the element of intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the case.

The defendant admitted to possessing the gun, which was found to be loaded. He states that the purpose of the gun was to protect his cocaine (cocaine possession) and the money. For this reason, the court can logically come to the conclusion of the intent of the weapon. The court was proper in its inquiry about the weapon.

The court has considered all of the remaining facets of the defendant’s case and has deemed them to be without merit. The case of appeal is dismissed.

If you are in need of legal assistance for any reason, including child pornography, credit card fraud or marijuana possession, contact the law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our team of expert litigators is happy to sit down with you and discuss your legal problems. Our offices are located throughout the city of New York for your convenience. You may contact us at any time to set up an appointment to come in for a free consultation to discuss your best course of legal action in regard to your problems.

Contact Information