New York

Published on: July 21, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Gun Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 11 November 1976 at about 8:00 p.m., a man entered a liquor store and asked for a pint of vodka. According to the clerk, the man was in the store for about two minutes, the man spoke with a slight Slavic, Polish or Russian accent, and he told the man he had nothing smaller in vodka than a fifth. At 8:30 p.m., the man returned and asked for a fifth of vodka, placing a $20 bill on the counter, but when the clerk obtained the vodka from a shelf at the back of the store and returned to the counter, a criminal law violation or a felony ensued; there was a handgun crime (possession of a weapon); the man pointed a gun at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. The clerk was clearing the cash register as the man came in and had left the drawer slightly ajar, but had not removed the bills from it. Lying on the floor, he heard the noise of the spring clips in the register compartments, indicating to him that the money was being removed and the noise of the door to the store opening and closing. After the robber left, the clerk noted that the $190 that had been in the register was gone and that the vodka was still on the counter. The elapsed time from beginning to the end of the man’s second visit was four to five minutes.

Thereafter, the clerk called the police, and two patrolmen arrived within 10 to 15 minutes. The clerk told patrolman-one that the man was about 5 feet 9 inches with long hair roughly to his collar and light brown in color, with a long thin face and a slight mustache, that he was wearing a long leather-type jacket with a belt and baggy pants of navy blue, and that the gun was black, with a short barrel and short chamber. Patrolman-two sought witnesses outside and was advised by witness-one that she had seen a tan van, possibly rust color too, with two male occupants and bearing out-of-State plates circle the area approximately four times, that it had stopped about 50 yards from the liquor store, and thereafter proceeded south. Patrolman-one broadcast the description of the robber received from the clerk and patrolman-two added, as part of the same broadcast, the description he had received of the van. Patrolman-two then went back to witness-one and asked her whether the van was colored like a U-Haul van to which she responded that she believed so since there was writing on the side, that the driver of the van had asked for directions, and that he was a white male, with brown curly hair, a slight mustache and a thin face. Patrolman-two then made a second radio broadcast stating that the van could possibly have been a rental van, a U-Haul van. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said his testimony does not reveal whether the second broadcast included the description of the driver of the van that he had received from witness-one.

Published on: July 3, 2012

Defense Contends Criminal Possession of a Weapon Charge is Not Warranted

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case for appeal being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Richard Coluccio. He is being represented by Gino Josh Singer, from New York City. The respondent in the matter is the People of the State of New York. Kerriann Kelly is the counsel for the respondent. She is from the office of James M. Catterson Jr., District Attorney.

Appeal

The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Judge Rohl, made the original judgment in the case on the first of November, 1988. The appellant has been convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a weapon, both in the second degree. The defendant pled guilty in the matter.

Published on: July 2, 2012

Defendant Alleges He Was Not Informed About Deportation

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant, Hopeton Gooden. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Bronx County. The defendant of the case has moved to vacate his judgment of conviction.

Case Background

On the 15th of May in 1975 a judgment against the defendant was entered that convicted him of robbery in the third degree. The defendant was then sentenced to a maximum imprisonment of four years.

Published on: July 1, 2012

Defendant Claims 4th Amendment Rights have been Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The people of the state of New York are the respondents in this particular case. The appellant in the case is Jessie Dunn. The case is being heard in the Fourth Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

This case for appeal deals with the question of whether the rights of the defendant were violated under the fourth amendment of the constitution.

Case Background

Published on: July 1, 2012

Court Decides if Error Was Made Regarding Grand Jury Minutes

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Second Department Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are the respondents of the case and the appellant in the case is Stanley Beal.

The main question presented by this appeal is whether or not the Criminal Terms refusal to adjourn the hearing to allow the defense the chance to receive a copy of the grand jury testimony from the only witness in the case is an error that is reversible.

Case Background

Published on: June 25, 2012

Defendant Claim Law He Was Convicted of Has Been Repealed

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2007, a man was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The case stemmed from an incident that was witnessed by an on duty uniformed police officer in Chemung County, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer was on regular patrol when he stated that he observed a van pull alongside a jeep that was about twenty to 25 vehicle paces in front of him. He testified at trial that he saw a light-skinned male who was wearing a white sweatshirt that had a design on the sleeves. He was wearing a light colored hat. The man leaned out of the passenger side window in the front of the minivan. He fired a pistol at the jeep and sped off when the officer began to chase him. During the pursuit, the passenger in the front of the van jumped out and ran. The officer followed him on foot and apprehended him hiding in bushes a short distance away. He was still wearing the light colored sweatshirt with stripes on the shoulders but he only had on one boot. The missing boot and the hat were located nearby as was a Sig Sauer P-239 9 millimeter pistol. A magazine that fit the weapon was located in a parking lot near the area where the defendant had fled the van. Ballistic testing on the pistol verified that the weapon was operable and that the bullet and casing evidence from the scene were consistent with the test bullets that were fired from that pistol.

Upon apprehension, the defendant stated that he was not the shooter and that the shooter was actually another man who was in the van. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the trial court did not think that the explanation provided by the defendant was reasonable and he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment. One of the contentions that the defendant made when he filed an appeal was that one of the laws that he was convicted of had been repealed before he was sentenced. The law was repealed after he was indicted and before he was sentenced. The court of appeals agreed that this charge on his indictment should have been dismissed prior to the sentencing phase because the law had been changed.

While it may not seem common, it is more common than one would think. Laws are changed and revised every year, during this time of fluctuation in the laws, people are still being stopped and arrested. Long Island Criminal Lawyer said there is usually a time delay in the time between the change of a law, and the enactment of the changes. An officer and sometimes even officers of the court are not notified immediately upon the change of a law. It can be several months from the time that a law is changed to the time that the information on the change in the law reaches the courts and police officers. During that time, people are still being charged and convicted of the offenses. Defense attorneys are necessary to ensure that the defendant does not have to serve time on a charge that was repealed prior to his arrest. It is unreasonable to have a defendant serve time for a conviction on a law that does not exist at the time that his sentence if read. In this case, the defense attorney caught the problem and filed the appeal that enabled the courts to correct the injustice before the defendant spent years in prison for a crime that was not valid at the time of his sentencing.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defedant Seeks to Have New Parole Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 17, 1990, a thirty-two year old plumber who was married with three children lived on West 143rd Street in Manhattan. At around 6:43 in the evening, the plumber met his brother’s wife’s boyfriend in front of 225 West 129th Street. The began to argue. They parted and went their separate ways. Later that night, the plumber and the boyfriend ran into each other again. This time, the boyfriend had another man with him. They were in a park near West 129th Street in Manhattan.

During this confrontation, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the boyfriend punched the plumber in the face. He fell to the ground and pulled out a handgun that he possessed a target license to carry. He fired at the boyfriend from his position on the ground. The boyfriend was struck in his chest and was killed. The plumber left the area, but later turned himself in to the police on November 26, 1990. The plumber stated that the shooting occurred in self-defense. He stated that when he was on the ground, he believed that the boyfriend was going to shoot him. He stated that he only shot him to prevent being shot. The police reports of the incident indicated that the boyfriend was not armed at the time of the shooting. The defendant plumber claimed that in 1982, the plumber had been shot by another man in a vehicle accident because the other man had hit his parked car. The plumber was shot twice during that incident after the other man went back to his own car to obtain his registration and insurance paperwork. When he returned to the plumber’s vehicle, he had a gun and shot him twice. In that incident, when the plumber was incapacitated on the ground, the other man attempted to shoot him again at close range. The gun misfired and the plumber’s life was spared. The plumber stated that the way that the boyfriend moved and his mannerisms, along with the 1982 history, made him believe that the boyfriend was in possession of a weapon and that he intended to use it.

The plumber did not have any criminal history, and at trial the Assistant District Attorney requested that he be sentenced to the minimum sentence required for his offense. That sentence would have been fifteen years to life. He was first eligible for parole in 2005. He was not a problem when he was in prison and did not have any disciplinary reports in his file. He worked during his prison term as a plumber’s helper in the maintenance department. He also worked as a program aide for the disabled and as a metal fabricator in the industries work area. He completed his high school equivalency degree and obtained an associate of arts of religious education college degree. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said he also attended several behavioral and psychological programs to reduce his risk of recidivism upon release. These programs included Violence/Aggressive Behavior Programs, Basic Parenting, Hispanic Needs Program to Eradicate Violent Behavior.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Asks to Seal Prior Convictions

by Stephen Bilkis

It is no secret that people make mistakes when they are young. It is not unreasonable to offer a second chance to those who are able to mature past their youthful indiscretions. The Rockefeller Drug Law reforms were created as a means to offer second chances to those offenders who were addicted to illegal drugs and were arrested. It requires that they submit themselves to an in-house drug treatment program while they are incarcerated, and that they successfully complete the program. These drug reform laws are directed at addicts who are encouraged to fight their addiction and become functioning members of society through intervention. These laws are not intended to provide a person who is not an addict, but who was a trafficker of narcotics a means to have their narcotics felony charges sealed.

However, on May 17, 2011, a man who was arrested in 1999 for trafficking in heroin (heroin possession) prepared a motion to the court that would allow him to have his record sealed. He stated that his felony narcotics trafficking conviction was preventing him from obtaining gainful employment. He presented transcripts from a six month drug treatment program that he enrolled himself in when he was on parole. He demonstrated that he has matured by presenting to the court, documents showing that he has successfully completed that program. He also presented several documents to the court that showed that he has completed all of the requirements to be a commercial pilot, but states that the 1999 narcotics conviction is preventing him from obtaining employment. He requests that the court seal his conviction under the drug reform laws. The court reviewed his request and had several matters that created resistance.

First, the drug treatment program that he registered for was only six months. Additionally, it was not a sanctioned program and he did not participate in it while he was under the supervision of the department of corrections. Further, the drug reform laws are directed at giving a second chance to addicts who have won their fights against their drug addiction. In this case, the defendant was not an addict. He was arrested during a heroin sale in which he contends that he was only acting as a body guard for his brothers who were the ones who were actually selling the narcotics. The court further points out that the Rockefeller laws are not intended to provide relief for felony narcotics traffickers. This case demonstrates the situation in which a man was convicted of felony narcotics trafficking eleven years ago. He is haunted by the fact that he is a convicted felon and must accept that label for the rest of his life. There are many privileges in life afforded to a person who is not a convicted felon. Once, those privileges have been taken away because of a felony drug conviction, they are noticed. Convicted felons cannot possess a firearm (possession of a weapon). Convicted felons cannot vote. Convicted felons may be searched and they have no right to privacy from their parole officers. In this case, the defendant contends that he was not actively involved in the sale of the heroin.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Court Determines Probable Cause for Weapons Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Parents have told their teenagers for years to watch the company that they keep. That is especially true if the teens are associating with persons who are likely to commit a crime (felony or misdemeanor). The courts are full of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time based on the company that they were keeping. Some of these people are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. In many cases, just being present with another person when they commit a crime is enough to qualify as party to a crime. Just by being there, the person may be charged with party to a crime of the crime that the other person commits. That rule is especially true if the person does not report the crime that they were present at. Reporting the crime, is an excellent way to show that the person had no intent to be involved in any wrong doing that occurred in his or her presence. Not reporting the crime can also be used to show intent to be involved in the crime.

In one case that was in the court of appeals of the State of New York, on June 26, 1979 dealt precisely with that problem. It was almost ten o’clock at night on March 11, 1978 when four police officers, three male detectives and one female uniformed officer in plain clothes were observing the actions inside a novelty shop on 42nd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues. The police officers watched as two brothers tried on shoulder holsters for firearms. The two brothers were in the company of a female who was the girlfriend of one of the brothers. The brothers purchased two shoulder holsters. The officers observed the transaction and observed the holsters being placed into a bag and given to the men. The officers observed the men and woman leaving the store and walking east on 42nd Street toward Seventh Avenue. The police officers began to follow the group.

The three people continued walking, but they turned around and looked at the police officers behind them several times. They changed directions and took circuitous routes making note that they were obviously being followed. One of the men began to walk in front of the others and gained on them by about twenty feet. The other two remained behind. The police officers also split up to maintain the proper surveillance. The two male detectives followed the man who had split off from the others. The female officer remained with the other male and the female. She followed them from a distance of about twenty feet.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Defendant Contends Impropriety of Prosecutors Office

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 10, 1992, the area of east 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in the Bronx, New York was a hotbed of drug activity. Rival drug gangs competed with each other for the drug turf using guns and violence to hold their sales areas. On this night, two brothers who were in control of that particular area, were seated in the back of a BMW parked at the corner when they were executed (murder) by a man with a gun. Both brothers were killed in the attack.

The trial that ensued convicted the defendant of being responsible for their murders. That conviction was appealed by the defendant based on the contention that he was not the man who shot (gun crime) the brothers, a juror in the trial was related to him, and that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct. At the time of his initial trial, there were five witnesses that testified that they saw the defendant kill the brothers.

These witnesses who were also drug dealers, were arrested at different times before this appeal was filed. One of the main witnesses claims that he was continually harassed by the defendant who was attempting to get him to change his testimony. He presented letters that had been sent to him from the defendant and friends of the defendant that told him that he would be killed if he did not recant his testimony. Two of the five witnesses had already met violent ends that were not attributed directly to the defendant who was in prison. After receiving one such letter, the witness applied to be transferred to a different institution for fear of his life. However, when he was transferred, it was to the same institution where the defendant was housed. This created several tense situations as the defendant had opportunity to encounter the witness on several occasions. The defendant repeatedly claimed that it was the witness who had actually executed the brothers and that he was framed for the murders.