New York

Published on: February 25, 2013

Court Decides Charges of Illegal Prescriptions

by Stephen Bilkis

An undercover police officer had heard rumors that it was possible to purchase drugs without prescription from a pharmacy in Manhattan. He had also heard it said that it was also possible to purchase drugs using a different prescription and the purchase price was discounted when a Medicaid car was used.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the undercover police officer entered the pharmacy and asked to buy forty pills of an antidepressant and a drug for treating high blood pressure. The pharmacy clerk out front told the undercover police officer that 40 pills were too many to sell without a prescription. He also told the undercover police officer that it was a federal crime to sell those drugs without a prescription. However, the clerk told the undercover police officer that he will speak to his boss who will decide. A few minutes later, the clerk came out with two bottles of pills, each containing forty pills. One set of pills was stamp-marked 2105V and the other was stamped 129. He paid twenty dollars for each bottle of pills.

A week later the same undercover cop returned to the pharmacy and asked for 20 antidepressants and 20 high blood pressure pills. He was given two bottles again, one contained 25 pills marked 2105V and 25 pills marked 129.

Published on: February 24, 2013

Defendant Charged with Assault in Times Square Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was indicted on two counts of assault in the second degree, one count of robbery in the third degree, and one count of reckless endangerment in the first degree based on an incident early New Year’s morning 1985 near Times Square.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it was argued that defendant removed the knapsack from the person of the unconscious woman lying on the sidewalk without the use of force–a grand larceny, not a robbery. Penal Law § 155.30(5) provides:

A person is guilty of grand larceny in the third degree when he steals property and when * * * the property * * * is taken from the person of another.

Published on: February 24, 2013

Defendant Claims Grand Larceny Charge Jurisdictionally Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

The chairman of a local political party was charged with grand larceny for having taken and appropriated monies from the funds of the local political party in all the nine years that he was chairman from the years 1968 until 1977.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the accused chairman seeks the dismissal of the indictment for grand larceny against him on the ground that the charge was jurisdictionally defective: the facts on which the charge was based were all conclusions of fact and do not apprise the accused of the crime for which he is being charged. He also claims that the monies he allegedly took from the funds of the political party were taken in a span of nine years. The accused chairman claims that there is a statute of limitations that limits prosecutions for grand larceny to those committed within five years from the time of the indictment. Since the charges were for the taking and misappropriating of funds and property committed for nine years, the charge contains facts which are already barred by statute while there are still some facts which are not yet barred by statute. This makes the indictment void according to the chairman.

The public prosecutor opposed the motion to dismiss. The prosecutor asserts that a charge in an indictment is sufficient when it contains facts that clearly allege each element so that the accused can understand what he is being charged with and so that he can defend himself.

Published on: February 21, 2013

Defendant Brings Omnibus Motion to Suppress Identification Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered February 13, 2008, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant’s conviction arises from two incidents in which he allegedly stole merchandise from a Home Depot store. The defendant was charged with one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree, based, inter alia, on his having taken property with a value of over $1,000 in an “ongoing course of conduct and common plan and scheme.” A Dutchess Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, after a pretrial hearing, the County Court denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. At the hearing, a New York Criminal Lawyer said that the County Court also ruled that if the defendant chose to testify at trial, the prosecutor could impeach him with evidence of the fact of one felony and seven misdemeanor convictions, but could not elicit the specific charges of which the defendant had been convicted, nor the underlying facts leading to the prior convictions.

At trial, the defendant’s nephew testified that he accompanied the defendant to the store on two dates. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the nephew testified that on the first date, he and the defendant placed a television on a cart. While the defendant spoke to a store employee his nephew wheeled the cart out of the store, and then the defendant followed. A store cashier testified that she witnessed this occurrence, and she identified the defendant at trial. The cashier also testified that after the defendant left the store, she looked up a price of televisions on a display, since she “recognized the front of the box” of those televisions. The cashier indicated that the sale price of the televisions on the display was $1,999.97. The cashier did not know the model number or name of the television that the defendant allegedly took. The People introduced no further evidence as to the specific type of television that was allegedly taken, nor as to the price of that television. The defendant’s nephew testified that on the second occasion, he and the defendant placed various items of merchandise in a shopping cart, wheeled that cart to a store exit, and placed those items beneath a gap in a fence leading to the parking area. A store “loss prevention investigator” testified to having witnessed those events, and identified the defendant at trial.

Published on: February 8, 2013

Court Discusses Drunkeness by Drug Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The main issue in this case is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to show marijuana possession by the defendant. The defendant has been found guilty on the charge of possession of marijuana in court without a jury.

Case Background

The testimony from the case shows that the defendant was observed by two police officers leaning out of a parked car in a residential area. The officers came over to the car to investigate and questioned him. The defendant supplied answers that were incoherent and confused. The physical appearance of the defendant was disheveled.

Published on: February 8, 2013

Immigration Issues Complicate a Drug Possession Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is 39 and a citizen of Italy. He is currently living in Florida. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service has moved to have him deported to Italy on the ground that he has overstayed his six month visa that was granted to him when he entered the United States and that he has been convicted of possession of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has applied for readjustment. The Immigration Court denied the application for readjustment and upheld the ground for deportation.

Case Background

The defendant left Italy in 1956 and lived in Scotland for a while and then in the Bahamas. He was arrested for marijuana possession while living in the Bahamas. He paid a fine of $600 instead of serving the 120 sentence.

Published on: February 7, 2013

Defendant Appeals Sentence of Intent to Distribute Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing the 97 month sentence that has been opposed upon him for his guilty plea to the charges of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (marijuana possession).

Case Background

The defendant agreed that he participated in a conspiracy to acquire and distribute quantities of marijuana. He also agree that he along with the two co-defendants provided marijuana to others during a two year time frame. The defendant also agreed that he along with his co-defendants delivered over 100 kilograms to another individual and the marijuana would be stored at that residence and the individual would distribute it.

Published on: February 6, 2013

Court Determines Insufficient Evidence Against Defendant in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Background

Local police officers executed a search warrant at a home and when they did they found the appellant along with two other young men inside the home. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was detained in the living room with the other two men while the search was conducted. The officers found three kinds of controlled substances in the bedroom. There was also marijuana found under the kitchen sink.

The appellant was the only person that was prosecuted as a result of the search. He was charged with possession of all of the drugs that had been found in the bedroom. He was charged with possession of cocaine, marijuana possession, and possession of barbiturates.

Published on: February 6, 2013

Defendant Requests Motion for Mistrial Based on Government Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and marijuana possession. The defendant argues that the evidence in the case is insufficient to support the charges against him and that the trial court made a mistake when they denied his motion for a mistrial based on the evidence of government misconduct.

Case Background

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said this case comes from a reverse buy sting operation. The defendant asked an acquaintance of his to broker a marijuana deal. The defendant had several prospective buyers and the friend had connections. One of the connections happened to be an informant. The friend contacted the informant to set up a transaction and a meeting was arranged between the informant, the friend, and the defendant.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Student Suspended for Marijuana Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

Outside of the guidance counselor’s office at the high school, a student was found sleeping. His skin was gray and he appeared to be extremely sick. The student was transported to the hospital and it was determined that he had consumed marijuana while on his lunch break. The student claimed that he had received the marijuana from the appellant right before lunch at her locker.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was questioned and admitted that she gave him the marijuana. She did not say where the exchange took place. The school contacted her parents and told both the appellant and her parents that an extended suspension would be recommended.

The student who took the marijuana dropped out of school. During the suspension hearing the appellant stated that she gave the other student marijuana, but the exchange did not take place on campus, although she did state that she had taken the marijuana from her locker. The school board found her guilty of possession and she was suspended.