Articles Posted in Marijuana

Published on:

Defendant has moved to dismiss the information on the grounds that the current charge of possession of a controlled substance in the 6th degree should have been joined under CPL Section 200.20 with an earlier charge for DWI driving while intoxicated which the defendant pled guilty to in March 1974.

A Suffolk County Criminal attorney said that the charge of driving while intoxicated and the current charge are allegedly related because the controlled substance was seized at the same time as the defendant was apprehended for driving while intoxicated. The defendant also argues that the Court, in its discretion, should dismiss the information pursuant to CPL Section 170.40 on the grounds that the circumstances surrounding the prosecution on this charge require a dismissal in the interests of justice.

Although the defendant pled guilty to the charge of driving while intoxicated he was not arrested for drug possession until April 1974. Defendant argues that the usual procedure of the Suffolk County Police Department was not followed in this case and that he has unnecessarily been subjected to two separate arrests, two separate searches, and two separate arraignments and processing procedures.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant moves pursuant to Section 440.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law to set aside the sentence imposed upon the ground that it was unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law. This is a case of ‘second impression’–the first time this precise issue has been raised in the First Judicial Department.

The issue in this case is whether he could properly be sentenced under the Penal Law without first having been examined pursuant to Section 81.19 of the Mental Hygiene Law (formerly Section 207) where he was charged with a violation of Article 220 of the Penal Law.

Section 81.19(a) states: ‘Every person charged with a violation of section seventeen hundred forty seven-e, section seventeen hundred fifty-one or section seventeen hundred fifty-one-a of the Former penal Law as in force and effect immediately prior to September first, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, which was committed after April first, nineteen hundred sixty-seven, And every person charged with a violation of any offense defined in article two hundred twenty of the penal law, and every person charged with any felony or misdemeanor or the offense of prostitution, which was committed after October first, nineteen hundred sixty-seven, who, while in custody or when he appears before the court, shall state, indicate or show symptoms, or it otherwise appears, that he is a narcotic addict, shall undergo a medical examination to determine whether he is a narcotic addict. This section of the Mental Hygiene Law was originally enacted in April, 1966, as part of a comprehensive plan to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Suffolk Criminal Possession of Marijuana Lawyer said that, this action was commenced by plaintiffs seeking a declaratory judgment that Local Law No. 23 of 1983 of the City of New York (“the ordinance”) is unconstitutional. Local Law 23 amended Chapter 22 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Plaintiffs moved before this court on August 4, 1983 for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the ordinance pending determination of the action. The ordinance was to go into effect on August 5, 1983. A temporary restraining order was granted by this court pending the hearing of the motion for a preliminary injunction on August 9, 1983 which was adjourned at the defendant’s (“City”) request. The City then stipulated with the plaintiffs not to enforce the ordinance pending the adjourned date of the hearing. In the interim the City has moved, and the plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment.

A Suffolk Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, the ordinance at issue prohibits the sale of drug paraphernalia. It is criminal in nature and provides that anyone who knowingly sells, offers for sale or displays any cocaine spoon, marijuana pipe, hashish pipe or other drug related paraphernalia is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The ordinance is based upon the Model State Drug Paraphernalia Act drafted by the Department of Justice. Plaintiff is the owner of “Out of Our Drawers” and Plaintiff owns “The Village Smoke Shop” both located in Greenwich Village. Plaintiffs challenge the ordinance on a number of constitutional grounds. First, they allege that the ordinance is preempted by New York State Law, in particular Article 39 of the General Business Law, Penal Law Secs. 220.45 and 220.50 and Public Health Law Sec. 3387(3). Plaintiffs contends that these State statutes evidence an intent on the part of the State Legislature to occupy the entire field of drug paraphernalia regulation and thereby preempt local legislation in that area.

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, plaintiffs also assert that the ordinance is void for vagueness and therefore violative of Article I, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The ordinance is also challenged on the ground that it infringes upon protected speech in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also assert an equal protection argument and, finally, contend that the ordinance is not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

Continue reading

Published on:

The line which marks the boundary between permissible police action and an unwarranted intrusion in violation of Fourth Amendment rights is frequently thin and not readily distinguishable. The need for on-the-spot decisions by law enforcement officials does not afford them the luxury of a contemporaneous in-depth analysis or consultation with counsel. It is reserved to the courts to make a retrospective judgment and to consider the multitude of variables in weighing the interests of society vis-a-vis the inherent rights of a citizen. Such an issue is presented on defendant’s motion to suppress physical property which forms the basis for charges of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, two counts of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Eighth Degree and Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Fourth Degree. Defendant also moves to suppress “as fruits of the poisonous tree” post arrest statements attributed to him.

A Suffolk Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, at about 10:30 p. m. on the night of December 1, 1978, two police officers on routine patrol in the parking lot of a shopping center in Bay Shore observed the defendant walking erratically toward a car. Their interest was heightened by the fact that he was singing loudly and waving a walking stick. The defendant is a 250 pound male, aged 27, who on this winter night was wearing an earring, a suede hat with a wide brim, a vest, checkered shirt, blue jeans and carrying a large wooden eagle. The total impact of the defendant’s conduct and presumably his appearance, prompted the officers to intercept and stop him after he had entered the car, put it in motion, and started to back up.

A Suffolk Drug Possession Lawyer said that, upon request, the defendant exited his car and produced his license, registration, and insurance card. He was then asked whether he was intoxicated or sick. Defendant replied he was “only slightly high” and was on his way to Lala’s Bar on Sunrise Highway and was well enough to drive his vehicle. The defendant was concededly not belligerent. One of the experienced police officers concluded from his observations including those as to the defendant’s eyes, speech described as “somewhat slurred” and the odor of his breath, that defendant was inebriated and arrested him for Driving While Intoxicated. The other police officer made no observations as to defendant’s eyes, his breath or speech before the arrest, but nonetheless concluded from defendant’s conduct that he was intoxicated. The defendant was not given any of the usual field tests such as touching his nose, picking up a coin, or walking a straight line.

Published on:

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, by motion submitted October 19, 2011, defendant moves to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h). On May 15, 1975, judgment was entered against the defendant in Supreme Court, Bronx County, convicting him upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the third degree (PL 216.05). On May 15, 1975, defendant was sentenced to a maximum term of four years imprisonment.

On June 2, 1987, the United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service issued defendant an “order to show cause, notice of hearing, and warrant for arrest of alien” that alleges he is subject to deportation from the United States pursuant to Section 1251 (a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), (8 USC 1251 [a] [4]), as a result of his 1975 robbery conviction.

A Suffolk Felony Lawyer said that, defendant now moves to vacate that judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h) on the grounds it was obtained in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and article I, § 6 of the New York Constitution. Defendant alleges that his defense counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea, and failed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Defendant further alleges that the trial court failed to: inform him of the elements of the crime to which he plead guilty, ascertain whether or not he understood them, determine whether or not he allocated to facts sufficient to support the elements of the crimes charged, conduct a hearing to determine whether or not he was competent to plead guilty, and inform him of his right to appeal. Alternatively, defendant requests that an evidentiary hearing be ordered to determine whether or not the judgment should be vacated.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Suffolk Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 25, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, failure to signal, and failure to display a lit headlamp, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 8½ years for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, seven years for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, three months for criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, one day for failure to signal, and one day for failure to display a lit headlamp.

A Suffolk Drug Possession Lawyer said that, in another case, petitioner was charged with the violation “Unlawful Possession of Marijuana” in violation of Penal Law §221.05 and was issued a desk appearance ticket. He appeared for arraignment on May 28, 2003 and was released on his own recognizance by respondent provided that he submit to a supervised drug test and that he report home by 10:00 p.m. each night. This petition seeks an order in the nature of prohibition claiming that the respondent Judge exceeded her authority by imposing conditions which were not relevant to the issue of bail and which violate petitioner’s due process rights.

The issue in this case is whether the defendant’s appeal should be granted.

Continue reading

Published on:

In addition, the criminal defendant challenged the voluntariness of his statements to the police by testifying during the trial that they were the product of verbal threats and physical abuse by the police.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

“Upon a request by a defendant, the prosecutor shall notify the defendant of all specific instances of a defendant’s prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which the prosecutor has knowledge and which the prosecutor intends to use at trial for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant.”

Published on:

This is drug crime where defendants are charged with one count of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree.

The challenge is directed to the motivation for and legality of a search for stolen property which also resulted in the not surprising seizure of other items including cocaine, alleged to have been found in “plain view”.

A Suffolk County Drug Crime attorney said that defendants are brother and sister and at all times relevant to these proceedings were residents at the subject premises in Long Island, a one-family house on about three acres of secluded property approximately 300 feet from the road.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is an Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Suffolk County Criminal attorney said that in May 2007, the defendant and four other individuals were arrested and charged with, inter alia, murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, for their alleged involvement in stealing a wrist watch and marijuana from the home of the victim, who was shot and killed during the course of the burglary in May 2007. The four codefendants entered into plea agreements, while the defendant proceeded to a jury trial.

In a pretrial omnibus motion, the defendant moved, inter alia, for a hearing. The People consented to the hearing and in their papers, stated that “[i]f the People intend to introduce testimony of the defendant’s prior bad acts, we will move the Court, in a written application, with adequate notice to defense counsel.” In an order dated March 11, 2008, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s request for a hearing to be conducted immediately prior to trial. However, no hearing was held, and the People never notified the defendant of their intention to impeach his credibility with respect to any prior criminal, vicious, or immoral acts.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant appears before this Court having pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the crime of Enticement of A Minor To Engage In Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422[b] in satisfaction of a six count indictment also charging defendant with, among other crimes, Distribution of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(1) and Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B). The defendant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of sixty months to be followed by five years of supervised release and will be monitored by a Federal Probation Officer for the duration of that five year term. Pursuant to Correction Law §168-n, a “Risk Level Assessment” hearing was held before this Court on May 15, 2009 to determine the defendant’s level of community notification.

The Court has considered the Risk Assessment Instrument and Case Summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (the “Board”), a packet of materials which includes the defendant’s federal pre-sentence investigation report submitted by the defendant’s Federal Probation Officer to the Board, the arguments of both the People and defense counsel, a memorandum of law submitted by defense counsel and the Court’s observations of the defendant during the hearing.

A Suffolk Felony Lawyer said that, a short recitation of the operable facts leading to the defendant’s conviction, as culled from the record before the Court, is necessary. On July 26, 2004 the Dallas, Texas division of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.) learned that the defendant, using the screen name/email address “kels4eval@yahoo.com”, was using the internet to solicit young adolescent girls for sexual encounters. The F.B.I. later learned that the screen name was registered to the criminal defendant. An undercover agent accessed the internet using the screen name “maddies2cute,” a nom de plume for a twelve-year-old girl. For approximately two weeks the defendant engaged in sexually explicit on-line conversations with the girl at times sending her photographs depicting pornography and exposing his penis to her through the use of a web-cam. On August 5, 2004 the defendant arranged to meet the girl and her thirteen-year-old friend at a Dallas hotel to engage in sexual conduct. The next day the defendant drove to the hotel, but left after he was unable to get a room. He was arrested shortly thereafter.

Continue reading