Long Island

Published on: October 30, 2012

Defendant Moves to Suppress Identification Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is M.B. He has made an omnibus motion requesting several forms of relief. The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The County Court of the City of New York in Suffolk County is hearing the case.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s omnibus motion has requested discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20. The People have answered that they have provided their entire discovery to the defense. The defendant has not submitted a reply to contest the sufficiency of the answer that was provided by the People. For this reason, it seems that the request has been complied with.

Published on: October 12, 2012

Court Discusses Constitutionality of Prison Reforms Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The case refers to an appeal submitted by the Texas prison officials for the denial of their motions to terminate prospective relief by the district court.

The relevant facts and procedural background of the case has transpired for almost 30 years. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that several criminal inmates filed claims against the director of the Texas correction facilities for malpractice and a violation of former’s civil and constitutional rights in the conduct of detention conditions and practices.

In 1992, judgment was rendered by the court. Several years have passed, the defendants filed a motion to vacate said judgment and a month later a law was enacted by Congress in relation to prison litigation reforms. Under the new law, “federal courts may grant or terminate prospective relief in prison litigation subject to certain standards and they may also refuse to terminate prospective relief only upon specific findings regarding the continued necessity of such relief.” This was the basis used by the corrections board of Texas, who seek to terminate the prospective relief of the judgment against their favor.

Published on: October 4, 2012

Contractor Charged with Grand Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A job contractor entered into a contract with an elderly homeowner for minor repairs to his house. When the minor repairs were finished, the job contractor asked the man to sign a receipt. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the homeowner was functionally literate, that is he can only read and write his own name. He cannot read much else. The homeowner thought that the job contractor was asking him to sign a receipt to evidence that he had duly worked on and made minor repairs on his house for the amount of $700.

The truth of the matter was that the job contractor asked the functionally literate homeowner to sign a mortgage deed and a promissory note for the amount of $1795. The job contractor was going to induce the homeowner to apply for loan and to sign a deed of mortgage on his house as collateral to pay for the loan. The promissory note was proof that the homeowner intended to borrow money and to pay it.

The functionally literate homeowner pressed charges against the job contractor for forgery, and for grand larceny which was committed by defrauding another in an amount exceeding $100. The job contractor was found guilty of the crime of grand larceny.

Published on: October 1, 2012

Court Discusses the Blockburger Test

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for fraudulent sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, and felony petit theft. He argued that both charges arose out of the same acts, and that this double conviction should be barred by section 775.021(4)(a) and (b), Fla.Stat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the record of this case established that Appellant told an undercover officer that he had rock cocaine for sale. He sold the officer a substance which proved not to be cocaine. For the fraudulent sale, he was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years in prison. For the felony petit larceny, he received a consecutive two-year term on community control followed by three years on probation.

The Florida Legislature has announced its intent that there should be separate and multiple convictions for each statutory offense that is committed during the course of a criminal transaction or episode. In section 775.021(4)(b) the Legislature set out basically only two exceptions to this policy. Subsections 1 and 3 are encompassed by the Blockburger test: statutory offenses which require proof of all of the same elements of proof; and those that require fewer, but identical elements of proof, which are necessarily included in the elements of the greater offense. Subsection 2 excepts “degree” crimes, such as the various forms of homicide.

Published on: September 27, 2012

Court Hears Heroin Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A Georgia Intent to Distribute Lawyer said that, the defendant appeals his conviction after trial to a jury for conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846, and to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). This court recently affirmed an earlier conviction of defendant for conspiracy to possess and to distribute heroin. On the present appeal a New York Criminal Lawyer said that defendant contends that the government arbitrarily has carved a single conspiracy to deal in narcotics into separate heroin and cocaine conspiracies in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

A Georgia Heroin Lawyer said that, the government’s proof in the heroin conspiracy trial established that defendants arranged sales of heroin for their cocaine customer a Detective, who unknown to them was an undercover DEA Agent. Co-defendant, who pled guilty, and the Detective testified against defendant in both trials. The government presented to the jury portions of defendant’s own testimony from the heroin conspiracy trial in the trial on the cocaine conspiracy charge. During July 1976, conspiratorial negotiations involving cocaine and heroin possession went on simultaneously. The major events proven in defendant’s trial on the heroin conspiracy charge which we discussed in our earlier opinion affirming that conviction, were also central to the government’s proof against defendant’s in the trial on the cocaine conspiracy charge.

The issue in this case is whether defendant’s claim for double jeopardy should be granted.

Published on: September 25, 2012

Court Hears Bank Fraud Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The savings bank filed a motion for summary judgment in its action against the mortgage corporation and the guarantors for breaches of loan agreement and guaranty agreement, respectively, by the latter and for their charges against another defendant for the commission of bank fraud.

The plaintiff entered into a contract of loan at New Jersey with the mortgage banker wherein the savings bank extended a line of credit to the defendant for the purpose of closing the latter’s existing mortgage loans. In connection with the loan agreement, the officers, who are the owners of the mortgage corporation, executed individual guaranty contract which established their solidary liability of the mortgage banker’s obligation upon its failure to settle the obligations on time. Another guaranty was executed by the owner’s wife in relation with the loan agreement.

The stipulations of the loan agreement pertain to the grant of mortgage loans of the defendants’ borrowers where the line of credit shall be used to finance the mortgage contracts. Upon settlement of the mortgage loans by the borrowers, the proceeds of the loan would then be remitted to the savings bank and mortgage notes would be used as security in favor of the savings bank as part of their agreement. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said much mortgages would then be sold to potential investors and the plaintiff, as bailee, shall give the investors the mortgage notes where they shall pay the purchase price directly to the savings bank’s mortgage warehouse lenders who in turn would give the proceeds back to the savings bank as payment to the advances made by the defendants in their line of credit with the plaintiff. The defendants were responsible to the keeping of all the records pertaining to the loan agreement.

Published on: September 22, 2012

Court Hears Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man who owned a bar saw two of his customers having an argument while inside the bar. He went over to them and told them to take their argument outside. The two men left the bar and stayed on the sidewalk just outside the bar and the argument escalated into a very heated argument. A New York Criminal Lawyer said tne man pushed the other man down. The man who pushed the other drew a gun from his backside and fired into the crown inside the bar which by then was rubber-necking the argument outside. A patron inside the bar got hit when the ma outside fired into the bar. That man lay seriously wounded on the floor of the Bar.

Unnoticed by the man outside the bar, a police officer on beat patrol heard the commotion and the shots fired. On the other side of the street, as the gunman fired into the bar, the police officer engaged the gunman in a gunfight. A few seconds later, a car pulled up near the gunman and the gunman got inside the car. The police officer gave chase while still firing upon the car.

In the meantime, when the bar keeper and owner of the bar heard that shots were fired by the gunman outside the bar, he went behind the bar and took out his shotgun. When he heard the screeching of the tires on the street, he came out of the bar and stood next to the police officer. He fired his shotgun at the car.

Published on: September 18, 2012

Defendant Contends Line of Questioning was Prejudiced

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested and charged with criminal heroin possession and sale sometime in August of 1973. The man stood trial and opted to testify in his own behalf. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he testified that the police officers who arrested him pressured him into becoming a police informant. He also testified that when he refused to be a police informant, the police officers threatened him with bodily harm.

He testified also on direct examination that he had never been convicted of any drug crime in the past. He denied having ever dealt drugs on the street. He also vehemently denied that he ever committed criminal heroin possession and sale as testified to by the police officers when they testified for the People. The district attorney began his cross-examination by asking the accused if he has ever had any criminal conviction at all prior to his arrest. The accused admitted that he was convicted as a youthful offender. The counsel for the accused did not object to the line of questioning that touched on the past criminal convictions of the accused.

The records show that the district attorney during the cross-examination of the accused asked him if he has ever in his life seen heroin. The accused answered affirmatively and asserted that he was a former heroin addict. It was at this time that the district attorney cross-examined the accused on his heroin usage in the past. The lawyer for the accused did not object to the district attorney’s line of questioning. The district attorney proceeded to question him as to the extent of his heroin usage. The accused admitted that he sniffed heroin intermittently until he was arrested. He also admitted that prior to that, he used to smoke marijuana.

Published on: September 15, 2012

Court Decides Drug Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 29, 1976 petitioner was indicted with a drug crime in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, and charged with several counts, the first of which alleged that from January 1, 1976 to November 18, 1976 certain defendants, including petitioner, “did knowingly and wilfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree together with each other and others to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine hydrochloride, a schedule II controlled substance”. In December, 1976 petitioner was indicted by the Sullivan County Grand Jury and charged with three counts, the first being cocaine possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine); the second being conspiracy to engage in the illegal manufacture, possession and sale of methamphetamine; and the third being criminally using drug paraphernalia for the purpose of preparing methamphetamine.

Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the first count of the Federal indictment and was sentenced to an indeterminate period of imprisonment, with a maximum of three years. Petitioner has commenced this proceeding to prevent respondents from prosecuting him on the Sullivan County indictment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondents concede that petitioner’s plea to the Federal conspiracy charges precludes prosecution upon the conspiracy count of the Sullivan County indictment. There remains, however,the charges of criminal possession and criminally using drug paraphernalia.

Published on: September 12, 2012

Court Discusses Rape by Forcible Compulsion

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant pleaded guilty to the sole count of superior court information charging him with third-degree rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with a person less than 17 years old. The majority upholds an assessment of 10 points for forcible compulsion even though defendant never was charged with rape by forcible compulsion in the superior court information, and an assessment of 15 points for refusing to accept responsibility because he denied he was guilty of a forcible compulsion rape. The Supreme Court, Bronx County adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. An New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant appealed.

The issue in this case is whether defendant is guilty of the crime charged.

The Court can uphold the assessment for forcible compulsion only if the People met their burden of proving forcible compulsion by clear and convincing evidence. That is, only if the People proved it “highly probable” that defendant committed the rape by forcible compulsion. The sole item of proof supporting this assessment is plainly hearsay, a statement in the felony complaint, albeit one sworn to by the victim, who was 13 years old at the time, to the effect that defendant committed the act of intercourse while another person held her down and a third person held her leg open. The Court agrees with the majority that the assessment for forcible compulsion is not precluded by the fact that defendant was not charged in the superior court information with forcible rape.