Criminal Procedure

Published on: October 28, 2012

drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was convicted after a jury trial of murder. Upon the conviction, a New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the woman was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of seventeen years. She was also convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to an indeterminate term five years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of two and one-half years to run concurrent with the life sentence.

The woman moves personally without a notice of motion or sworn affidavit, for re-sentencing to a determinate term of imprisonment. She did, however, verify that she served the District Attorney. Notwithstanding such service, the District Attorney failed to file any opposition. Consequently, on February 4, 2010, the court deemed the woman’s motion submitted on default.

Irrespective of the District Attorney’s default, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman fails to provide any legal basis upon which the court may grant the relief requested. While she refers to the recently passed laws that may allow people who are serving life sentences to be considered to be re-sentenced to an alternate determinate sentence, she fails to identify any legal basis in support of her application. Indeed, it appears to the court that her claim is predicated on having been denied parole, stating that he has been denied parole release based solely for her crime, which will never change. It is served above and beyond the minimum term on both indictments and the maximum on one that she is not asking for a reduction that will minimize the responsibility to accept the punishment of her crime, however, the past cannot be change and to be denied release solely for her offense, which will not change is illogical and excessive. The woman believes that she is eligible to file an application under the standards of law and respectfully that she be re-sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment.

Published on: October 28, 2012

Appellate Court Reverses Indictment for Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent and defendant in this case is M.K. The People of the State of New York are the appellants in the case. The Court of Appeals in the state of New York is hearing this case. There were two indictments filed against the defendant, Kirkup, in the Extraordinary Special and the Trial Terms of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Indictment 7256 charged the defendant with committing the crime of conspiracy. Indictment 7258 charges the defendant of violating section 1864 of the Penal Law.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People of the State of New York submitted evidence to the Grand Jury that showed that A.F., who is a pharmacist that operates a small retail drug store in Suffolk County along with his successors in interest had ordered drugs from pharmaceutical houses solely for the use of the Suffolk County Home, but in actuality for selling to the public.

Published on: October 28, 2012

Defendant Claims Rights Were Violated in Search

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case before the Justice Court of the City of New York in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York.

Case Background

There was reason to believe that the defendants were living in a home that was over occupied. An affidavit was submitted to support the warrant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the affidavit it was shown that there was reason to believe that up to 25 people were currently living in different areas of the premises. This is a violation of the rental code and there had been several complaints regarding the premises.

Published on: October 27, 2012

Court Rules on Use of Public Health Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with an application made by P.H., the District Attorney of Suffolk County. He has entered a petition for a judgment and determination of forfeiture under Article 33, Section 3388 of the Public Health Law of the State of New York. The respondent of the case is S.C. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part II.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on the 3rd of September, 1980, the defendant – respondent S.C entered a plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. This plea satisfied the seven charges that were made against him in an indictment. The defendant was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one to three years.

Published on: October 27, 2012

Defendant Offers Plea Deal

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case involving the People of the State of New York against the defendant G.T. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part I. The defendant of the case has moved to compel a cooperation agreement with the plaintiff’s. He states that he will provide information in support of indictments of others in exchange for consent by the District Attorney to a plea of a lesser charge against him and a recommendation that he should not be incarcerated.

Additionally, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant seeks a dismissal of the indictment because of the legal insufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes, prosecutorial misconduct, and selective prosecution. Following this relief he moves for a change of venue and discover and inspection.

Case Background

Published on: October 26, 2012

Court Discusses CASAT Treatment Program

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter of an application made by the petitioner Ronald M. in regard to a judgment that was filed in the Franklin County Clerks office on the 29th of January, 2008. The respondent in the case is Brian F. who is the Commissioner for the NYS Department of Correctional Services. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Franklin County.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on the 21st of November, 2006, the petitioner was sentenced in the Suffolk County Court as a second felony offender. His sentence was set at five years with two years of post release supervision. This sentence was for his conviction of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance (drug possession).

Published on: October 26, 2012

Court Dismisses Indictment Against Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal by the defendant J.T.. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The judgment was rendered on the 19th, 1989 and convicted him of the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 1985, the defendant, J.T., and his business partner ran a successful roofing business in Suffolk County. They had the business for several years. For several years the defendant, his wife, his business partner, and several of their mutual friends were weekend cocaine users. The defendant used one gram of cocaine a week and this was supplied to him by his business partner.

Published on: October 25, 2012

Court Discusses Validity of Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against three defendants. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County Part II. The defendants in the case, they have been charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree(drug possession). One defendant Daphne Barber has also been charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.

Defendants Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendants have motioned both orally and in writing for two search warrants that were issued on the 24th of June and the 2nd of July in 1981 to be removed and for all the evidence including the cocaine that was seized to be suppressed. Defendant Eric Jean did not move with respect to the indictments against him and is not a part of this hearing.

Published on: October 25, 2012

Court Dismisses Indictment Against Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The case deals with an appeal being made by O. B. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant is appealing a verdict from a judgment made by the County Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of May, 1979 and convicted him of criminally negligent homicide.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s guilt in this matter was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time of the incident the defendant was driving his vehicle with three passengers inside it. He was going approximately 35 miles an hour. All of the passengers had smoked marijuana. Quite suddenly, one of the passengers told the defendant to stop the car. The passenger was a fifteen year old girl. At first the defendant ignored her and continued to drive. She continuously repeated her request for the car to be stopped and threatened to jump out of the car if he did not stop.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Appellant Claims Evidence Improperly Admitted at Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 1986, there was a gathering of people in the apartment of a woman. The woman requested a man to bring to that event several glassine bags of a white powdery substance which the state asserts was heroin. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that some time during the course of the evening the substance was injected into the body of the woman and her boyfriend. The next day, the substance was injected by two other men to their own body. One of the men took 11 envelopes after agreeing to help the man sell the substance. At about 4:00 p.m. that day, the woman became ill and died of causes apparently unrelated to the case and an investigation was conducted.

As a result of a search of the apartment, several items were seized including a piece of mirror with white powder residue, a box found in the medicine cabinet containing a black shoe lace, syringe, hypodermic needle and bottle cap cooker, an empty bottle cap found in the medicine cabinet, a syringe and needle found in a dresser drawer, and a plastic bag containing white powder which was found in a kitchen drawer. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said after testing by a forensic scientist, only the bottle cap cooker tested positive for the presence of narcotics. The forensic scientist who performed the autopsy of the woman’s body found the presence of substances including quinine but no traces of the presence of either heroin or morphine.

The man and his companion were indicted for three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal injection of a narcotic drug. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the man’s motions for severance were denied and a joint trial was held wherein the other man chose not to testify but the man testified on his own behalf.