Published on:

On appeal, the judgment was affirmed.

On 12 May 2008, the County Court of Suffolk County rendered judgment convicting a certain defendant of criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), attempted rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict. Domestic violence could be involved.

On appeal, the judgment was affirmed.

Here, the criminal defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was unpreserved for appellate review. This is pursuant to CPL 470.05[2] and the court’s ruling in the case of People v. Hawkins. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and pursuant to the case of People v. Contes, the court found that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in fulfilling the court’s responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence, pursuant to CPL 470.15[5] and the case of People v. Danielson, the court nevertheless accorded great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor. Upon reviewing the record, the court was satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence. Moreover, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than that offered during plea negotiations does not establish that the County Court retaliated against him for exercising his right to trial. In sentencing the defendant, the County Court properly considered his lack of remorse and his unwillingness to accept responsibility for the crimes he committed. Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive.

Meanwhile, on 24 July 2008, the County Court of Suffolk County rendered judgment convicting another defendant of rape in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial.

On appeal, the judgment was affirmed.

Here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s untimely motion for a hearing to suppress evidence because he did not explain why the motion could not have been made sooner, pursuant to CPL 255.20 and the court’s rulings in the cases of Payton v New York, People v Greaves and People v Anderson. Moreover, the defendant’s trial counsel’s failure to timely move to suppress evidence pursuant to Payton did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, since the motion was not warranted by the facts and his counsel otherwise provided meaningful representation, as held in the cases of People v Howard; People v Jackson; and People v Coats. Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions was unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the court found that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, in fulfilling the court’s responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence, and pursuant to CPL 470.15[5] and the case of People v Danielson, the court nevertheless accorded great deference to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor. Upon reviewing the record, the court was satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence. Clearly, the Supreme Court legally imposed consecutive sentences upon the defendant’s convictions of rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree, as each count involved a separate sexual act constituting a distinct offense, and, as held in the case of People v Suitte, the sentence imposed was not excessive.

The best Suffolk County Criminal Defense Lawyers can be found at Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our firm has offices throughout New York. Free consultations with the most skilled Suffolk County Rape Attorneys, Suffolk County Sexual Abuse Attorneys, and the like, are available at our firm. You can reach us at our number or visit any of our offices.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information