Articles Posted in New York

Published on:

On September 25, 2003, the Associate Village Justice of this Court signed a search warrant directed to “any police officer of the County of Nassau.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the search warrant provided: “Proof, by affidavit, having been this day made before me by Senior Building Inspector, Village of Westbury, Public Works, Village of Westbury and Department of Public Works, Village of Westbury that there is probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, as set forth in the affidavit and Exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein; you are therefore, commanded to make a search with Senior Building Inspector and his agents, between 09/25/03 and 10/02/03 in the hours between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. of the entire premises designated and described as 335 Princeton Street, Westbury, New York. “The seizure of the foregoing evidence shall be limited to the taking of still photographs and videotape pictures of the inside and outside of the premises. This warrant must be executed within 10 days of the date of signing and a return to court 10 days thereafter. “If you find the same or any part thereof you are hereby directed to return and deliver said evidence to the undersigned Justice of the Village Court without unnecessary delay.”

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the Senior Building Inspector submitted what may be described as an exhaustive affidavit in support of the application. This Court wonders why, in view of the thoroughness of this affidavit and the apparent pre-warrant investigation, that a search and search warrant were needed at all unless the Village is simply trying to test the legal waters in this case to determine whether they may have another tool at their disposal, namely search warrants, that they may use to enforce the Village’s zoning and building code laws. The application for and the execution of a search warrant may in themselves deter the proliferation of illegal housing. The execution of a search warrant is an extremely frightening event for those subject to it. The court questions the need for this warrant because there is no legal requirement that a warrant be obtained in order to take photos of the outside of the premises from a public thoroughfare in front of the home. However, this Court finds that the Village has acted in good faith attempting; for example, to obtain the homeowner’s consent for the search prior to seeking the warrant and no doubt believing that similar actions have been approved and utilized in other villages without challenge.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the subject property, 335 Princeton Street, is a two story house within the Incorporated Village of Westbury, New York. As shown on the records of the Department of Buildings of the Village of Westbury it is located on a quiet residential block consisting of one (1) family homes neatly maintained on a tree lined block.

Continue reading

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this case involves a 17 year old juvenile who is challenging an adjudication made against her for possession of drug paraphernalia.

Case Background

The girl was driving her car with three friends. She was involved in a car accident. When the police arrived at the scene of the accident the driver’s side door was opened. The juvenile stated that the car belonged to her mom, but she used it quite often. The officer looked in the car through the open door and saw a glass item on the floorboard. He recognized it as a pipe that is often used to smoke illegal substances.

Published on:

A Georgia Intent to Distribute Lawyer said that, the defendant appeals his conviction after trial to a jury for conspiring to possess cocaine (drug possession) 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 Georgia Heroin 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 went on simultaneously. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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:

Under Massachusetts procedure, a ‘two-tier’ system is utilized for trial of a variety of criminal charges. The initial trial under this system is in a county district court or the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. No jury is available in these courts, but persons who are convicted in them may obtain a de novo trial, with a jury, in the appropriate superior court by lodging an ‘appeal’ with that court. At the de novo trial, all issues of law and fact must be determined anew and are not affected by the initial disposition. In effect, the taking of the appeal vacates the district court or Municipal Court judgment, leaving the defendant in the position of defendants in other States which require the prosecution to present its proof before a jury.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in January 1974, appellant was charged with knowing unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, an offense under Mass.Gen.Laws, c. 90 § 24(2)(a). The offense is subject to the two-tier system described above. Prior to trial in the Municipal Court, appellant moved for a jury trial. The motion was denied and the trial before the court resulted in a judgment of guilty. A one-year prison sentence was imposed. Appellant thereupon lodged an appeal in the Superior Court for SuffolkCounty.

Without awaiting proceedings in Superior Court, appellant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, seeking to establish that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a jury be available in his first trial, whether it be in the Municipal Court or the Superior Court. He also raised speedy trial and double jeopardy contentions as bars to his retrial before a jury.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Facts:

On 20 May 2009, defendant was arraigned on a fugitive from justice complaint based on an arrest warrant issued on 11 May 2009, Delaware County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The arrest warrant charged the defendant with the following felonies: one count of Criminal Solicitation, two counts of Criminal Solicitation and one count of Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, all of which were allegedly committed on 2 October 2008.

On 27 October 2009, defendant sought to withdraw the Waiver of Governor’s Warrant of Extradition and Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Waiver of Extradition”) executed by him on his arraignment as a fugitive of justice from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on 20 May 2009.

Continue reading

Published on:

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. The defendant and appellant in the matter is Edward Murphy. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The defendant is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Bronx County that convicted him after a jury trial of the crime of rape in the first degree and sentenced him to a lesser sentence concurrent with a conviction of rape in the first degree.

Court Records

In review of the case it is found that the defendant offered statements to the court standing by his plea of guilty. He bargained for this plea and did not want to withdraw it. The statements made to the probation officer that were thought by the court to be a protestation of innocence were not inquired into the court in any extent. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the order of the court to vacate the guilty plea must be set aside in this particular case.

Continue reading

Published on:

A 55 year old man, after violating a criminal law, has been placed under the Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST) under a sex offender civil management proceeding. Subsequently, the State filed for a petition to revoke the respondent SIST’s placement and requested the court for the respondent to be transferred under a Secure Treatment Facility under Article 10 of the Mental Health Law. The court denied the petition.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent acknowledged that he was a drug user from 1980 up to 1993. He admitted having marijuana possession and used it during his teenage years. His addiction relating to drug crime led him to commit several offences. In 1994, the court has found him guilty of Attempted Rape in the First Degree, Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and Burglary in the First Degree for entering an apartment of a lady and while holding a knife, placed her hand on his penis. Prior to this incident, he was a known exhibitionist masturbating in public places while his penis was partially exposed to public view. He admitted that he suffered from a Mental Health Abnormality thus the State entered an agreement for him to be placed and monitored under the SIST.

On August 11, 2010, the respondent placed his cellphone camera under the skirt of a woman in Union Square Park with the intention of photographing the victim. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the victim upon its discovery threw the cell phone and scuffled with the respondent. In course of the incident, the victim suffered physical injuries. In addition to this incident, a parole officer mandated to supervise him during the program testified that the respondent violated the terms of the agreement by masturbating in a public place. The respondent admitted to masturbating inside the stall of a public restroom and a library.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case is being heard in the Kings County Supreme Court. The Justice overseeing the case is Joel M. Goldberg. The defendant in the case is Otis Carr who is represented by Robert M. Baum from the Legal Aid Soc. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The People are represented by the Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes and the Kings County Assistant District Attorney John Barker.

Case Issue

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the matter at hand involves whether the statutory language that is found in Penal Law 125.27 and states “more than 18 years old” means “at least 19 years old” as contended by the defendant.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Facts:

On 7 December 2001, defendant and two acquaintances approached a man as he was walking with his friends in Queens, New York. Defendant held out his hand and that man, believing that the stranger was attempting to greet him, returned the gesture by slapping him “five.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant told the man, however, that he did not want a greeting; he made clear that he wanted the man’s compact disc player. Defendant snatched the player out of the man’s hand, walked away and allegedly began listening to the “Busta Rhymes” CD in the disc player.

The man followed defendant, repeatedly asking for his disc player back, at which time one of defendant’s acquaintances, codefendant, approached the man and told him to “run his pockets”, meaning, to give co-defendant his money. The man told co-defendant he did not have any money and then turned to continue following defendant, whereupon co-defendant repeatedly punched the man from behind, causing a laceration on the ear.

Contact Information