Robbery

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Decides if Defendant’s Sentences Should Run Concurrently

by Stephen Bilkis

At approximately noon on July 12, 1982, defendant savagely attacked a man in his apartment. After defendant took certain items of jewelry from the man, defendant’s accomplice bound the man, and defendant slashed the man’s neck twice with a knife. The perpetrators then foraged around the apartment for loot. The defendant returned to check the man’s pulse, and stabbed him several times in the back of the neck. After a final search of the apartment, the accomplice, an acquaintance of the man, told defendant to “make sure”. The defendant returned and stabbed the man twice in the chest. The perpetrators then placed two mattresses over the man, set them afire, and left. The man miraculously survived, due to a blood clot in his jugular vein.

Subsequently, the defendant was arrested and, following a jury trial, was found guilty of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, and two counts of burglary in the first degree.

The sentencing court found that the attempted murder occurred after the robbery and burglary were completed.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Robbery Defendant Claims Circumstantial Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused man and his accomplice as well as the two female complainants boarded a subway train at 125th Street. Once on the train, the accused man and his accomplice sat down near, although not immediately beside, each other and engaged in a conversation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that thereafter, the accomplice began to verbally harass the complainants. The accused man did not join in and in fact eventually moved by himself to a different subway car. When the train arrived at Zerega Avenue, the complainants got off followed by the accused man’s accomplice. It was shortly after leaving the train that the complainants were accosted on the subway platform by the accomplice and robbed of various possessions at knifepoint. One of the complainants testified that while the accomplice relieved her and her companion of their possessions, the accused, who had apparently also exited the train at Zarega Avenue, stood some 65 to 75 feet away; he was situated at the top of the stairwell providing access to and from the platform. While the first complainant at first claimed to have observed the accused glancing alternately down the stairs and in the direction of the ongoing robbery, she later stated that the accused was simply standing at the top of the stairs–that she could not see his face and that she did not witness any communication between the accused and the accomplice while the robbery was in progress.

Once the robbery was complete, the accomplice joined the accused and the two fled the station together. A short time later, when they were apprehended in the vicinity of the station, the accomplice was still in possession of the items taken from the complainants; the accused, on the other hand, had no stolen property and disclaimed any relationship with the accomplice, stating that he don’t know the guy and he was just asking him for directions.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Judge Acquits Man Found Guilty by Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 11, 1980, a man was walking outside his apartment. Two men who also frequented the apartment building where he lived came up to him and talked to him. Thinking that they were just being friendly, he stopped to chat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men blocked his way and the other asked him for his money. When he said he didn’t have any money on him, the man grabbed his hand and forcibly took the ring he was wearing on his finger.

The two men immediately turned and left the man. He reported the robbery to the police. He gave their names to the police and their description and they were arrested. They were charged with robbery in the second degree. The indictment alleged that the two men acted in cooperation with one another and being physically present at the same time and forcibly stole the ring from the man.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendants Claim Trial Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 7, 1984, at approximately 5:00 P.M., a 20-year-old taxi driver met his friend who spent the evening with him riding in the front seat of his cab. At about 8:30 P.M. he proceeded to Union Place pursuant to a radio dispatch and picked up two young men, the accused and the co-accused. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that although the taxi driver did not know the pair, his companion recognized them from the neighborhood. The taxi driver was directed by the men to take them to Yonkers. During the trip, which took approximately four minutes, no one spoke.

When they arrived at the destination, the accused told the taxi driver that he was going inside the building to find some friends and asked to wait for him. The co-accused remained in the back seat of the taxi while the accused went inside. Shortly thereafter, the accused returned, accompanied by another male, and asked the taxi driver to drive them back to Union Place.

As the taxi was travelling down the hill that approached Union Place, the accused placed a gun to the taxi driver’s neck and told him to give his money. He saw the gun and felt it pressed to his neck. In response to the demand, he gave the robbers approximately $20 he had in his shirt pocket and an additional sum of approximately $100 from his wallet. The three men then exited the taxi and ran off into the darkness. During the robbery, the co-accused pushed the driver’s companion forward in the front seat to keep her head down.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Decides if Accomplice will be Convicted

by Stephen Bilkis

Five men formed a gang whose only purpose was to prey on drug dealers. They targeted drug dealers who were always awash with cash and robbed them. They also took the drugs they found on the drug dealers and sold these on the street. One night, on February 12, 1997, all five men planned to rob a drug dealer who had a first floor apartment on Riverside Drive.

Of the five men, one was to be the driver and wait for them in the car while the others entered the apartment of the drug dealer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said their plan was to ring the doorbell and when they were buzzed in, they would force themselves inside the apartment of the drug dealer. The group came late and they missed the drug dealer who had already left his apartment. There was no one home. So the five men went their separate ways.

A few hours later four of the five men came together to see if the drug dealer had come back to his apartment; the driver did not go back with his four friends on the second robbery attempt. He went home.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defendant Brings Case for Sentencing Error

by Stephen Bilkis

On 3 May 1995, defendant was convicted of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, one count of Assault in the Second Degree, one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree.

On 15 May 1995, defendant was sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years for each Robbery in the First Degree conviction, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years on five of the six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three and one-half to seven years on the Assault in the Second Degree conviction, one year determinate on the Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree conviction, and one year determinate for both Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree counts.

The sentencing Court ran the two Robbery in the First Degree sentences, and two of the Robbery in the Second Degree sentences consecutive to one another, for a total indeterminate sentence of thirty-five (35) to seventy (70) years.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Robbery Defendant Claims Misidentification in Line Up

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 November 1988, early in the evening, A New York City Police Officer and his partner, both assigned to the 34th Precinct, were on routine motor patrol, when they received a radio message directing them to the corner of 213th Street and Broadway, New York County.

As the officers were approaching the location, one of the officers saw one man holding another man, with a woman standing nearby.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men, informed the officer that, after he had heard a woman screaming, he saw the man, who he was now holding and who was later identified as the defendant, running from Inwood Park, carrying a brown pocketbook, and he responded by seizing and holding the defendant, while a bystander summoned the police. At that point, the man gave the officer a rubberized hammer handle, as well as the pocketbook, and he told the officer that he had taken both of those items from the defendant. Further, the man explained to the officer that the defendant had attempted to strike him with the hammer handle.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Court Discusses Felony Murder Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

According to the accused man’s trial testimony, he and several others met at an uptown hotel to arrange a robbery of their acquaintances that were operating a shooting gallery for heroin in a nearby apartment. They completed their plans and proceeded to the apartment, armed with at least two loaded guns. They ordered the occupants to strip, tied them up, blindfolded them and removed their money and clothing.

The accused man states that after he left the apartment, as he was going down the stairs his female accomplice shot the owner of the apartment, the man happened to be her former lover. He claims that she was motivated by resentments stemming from this prior relationship, and that the killing was therefore not connected to the robbery.

New York Criminal Lawyer the jury offered no testimony to dispute the accused man’s version of the events. The surviving robbery victims did not see who actually fired the fatal shot as they were all still blindfolded. The accused man does not argue, nor could he, that the fact that he was not proven to be the actual shooter absolves him of the felony murder charge. Having admitted his participation in the robbery, the accused man would ordinarily be responsible for the murder of the apartment owner even if he lacked the specific intent to cause his death and did not personally contribute to the homicide. He claims, however, that the homicide case was not sufficiently connected to the felony to invoke the provisions of the felony murder statute. At issue is the meaning (if any) of the phrase in furtherance of the robbery as used in the felony murder statute. The question does not appear to have been answered in any reported decisions.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Court Reverses Prior Ruling Regarding Robbery Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

One Saturday morning, a military air force base exchange was robbed. The robber took nearly $30,000 from the cashier’s safe and putted into a plastic bag taken from a trash can near the cashier’s cage.

At the trial, a New York Criminal Lawyer said none of the five witnesses could identify the robber. The robber wore a hooded sweatshirt, used a towel to conceal the lower half of his face and another towel wrapped around his arm during the incident. One of the witnesses testified that she saw a black object inside the towel, which she thought was a gun. Another witness also testified that when a woman approached the cashier’s window in the exchange office, the robber raised his towel-wrapped arm, pointed it to the woman and threatened to kill her.

After the robbery, an airman mentioned the incident to his colleague. Less than three hours later, the airman paid a car dealer amounting almost $6,000 in cash as a down payment on a new car. The money that the airman spend was still bundled in wrappers that were dated, initiated and stamped with an official seal of the base exchange and during that weekend the robber spent close to an additional $2,000 on other purchases.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Robbery Results in Death of Victim

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 5, 1975, an elderly woman was living alone in her home in forest Hills, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said her home was attached to another home on the side of it and she had difficulties getting along with her neighbor. On December 5th , burglars broke in to her home and tied and gagged her as they rummaged through her home and stole her belongings including several fur coats. A piece of cloth was shoved into her mouth to work as a gag. During the robbery or shortly thereafter, the gag that was in her mouth cut off her oxygen supply and she suffocated.

On December 12, police arrested a 58 year-old used furniture store owner in Manhattan. He was not connected to the victim by any obvious means. The police also arrested two employees of the furniture salesman. One was a man with a lengthy criminal record for possession of stolen property and the other was a seventeen year-old female who was also an employee of the shop. The trio was transported to the 106th precinct where they were Mirandized. The seventeen year old girl had a history of drug usage and the police suspected that the events of that night were fueled by the prospect that the crime might be drug related.

However, when the trio was Mirandized, the defendant store owner stated that he understood his rights and that he did not want to make any statements. He did not request an attorney. After four and a half hours, the defendant called the detective to his cell and informed him that the wanted to speak to a District Attorney about a deal in his case. The officer informed him that the District Attorneys had already gone home for the day. The detective asked him if he wanted to tell him anything and the defendant did not respond.