Robbery

Published on: April 18, 2012

Robbery Defendant Seeks to Have Confession Excluded

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 22, 1965, a Supreme Court judgment was handed down convicting a man of robbery in the third degree. He pleaded guilty and was given a sentence in accordance with the fact that he was a second felony offender. He later appealed on August 9, 1965 requesting that certain evidence should be suppressed. That motion was over ruled.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on September 30, 1965, he attempted to have his alleged confession excluded and attempted that again on November 22, 1965. Both motions to exclude his confession and to withdraw his guilty plea were reviewed. The motion to exclude his confession was denied, but his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and substitute a plea of not guilty to the indictment was granted and the case was sent to trial. On September 30, 1965, the justices reversed the conviction on the law and then agreed to exclude his confession.

The defendant in question was arrested in the act of attempting to burglarize a closed and locked business at approximately eleven o’clock at night. He was seen standing on the roof of a garage, attempting to gain entry through a closed window. The defendant refused to answer questions at the scene and a search of his person revealed that he was carrying a knife that was partially broken apparently while trying to force open the window. Also on his person, were identification cards and papers that belonged to a pharmacist who had recently been robbed.

Published on: April 18, 2012

After Multiple Charges, Defendant Pleads Insanity Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

After a jury trial, a man was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, three counts of assault in the first degree, 15 counts each of kidnapping in the second degree and kidnapping in the second degree, five counts each of assault in the second degree as a hate crime and of assault in the second degree, and three counts each of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as second violent felony offender, to a cumulative term of 240 years.

In the main charge on the insanity argument and its response to notes from the deliberating jury, the court properly read the jury instructions pattern which charge on the said subject. The court properly declined to add language instructing the jury to consider the man’s capacity to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct from a subjective point of view relating to the false beliefs that he allegedly held as a result of psychiatric illness. The standard language permitted the jury to accept the man’s insanity argument under the theory that his asserted mental disorder caused him to sincerely believe that society would approve of his immoral acts because they were divinely commanded. The court was not obligated to add the language to that effect or to give any special instructions concerning a false belief. The court also concludes that the supplemental instructions were meaningful responses to the notes. The court further notes that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the man did not have any delusions or hallucinations about being divinely commanded to commit his criminal acts.

The man’s first trial resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. On his retrial, the man was convicted of 53 counts, including attempted murder and assault, both as hate crimes, and was acquitted of attempted murder in the first degree. The only defense raised was that the man was not responsible by reason of mental disease when he committed the criminal acts. The psychiatrist called by the Court found that the man was legally sane when he acted, but other examining psychiatrists found man to be seriously delusional and/or insane.

Published on: March 11, 2012

Defendant Charged with Robbery Claims They Did not have a Weapon

by Stephen Bilkis

Vincent Knowles was charged with one count of robbery in the first degree. He admitted in the hearing before the court that he did steal money, a wallet, jewelry and subway tokens from a Henry Laylock. He also testified that he placed his hand in his pocket, which looked like he had a gun so Mr. Laylock will give him his valuables. The fact was he was unarmed. He pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said if a person displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm when he forcibly steals a property, he is guilty of robbery in the second degree according to the law.

The Trial Court had accepted Mr. Knowles plea, and the case was given to the Supreme Court Appellate Division for review. The Court of Appeals in their review said they need to be one to check if the letter of the law was correctly interpreted in this case. The law states a person who “displays what appears to be” a firearm during a robbery is guilty of robbery in the second degree. The focus they said is to be on the word appears instead of display. In this case, Mr. Knowles did not display anything as his hand was in his pocket during the robbery. In his testimony, he admitted he pretended it was a gun.

Before any revision to the Penal Law, the only law which pertained to firearms was with the robbery in the first degree, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer. This is when a person is armed with a dangerous weapon when committing a robbery. It was not defined by the unrevised law, but the court had always ruled to show the weapon needs to be working and loaded for it to be deemed dangerous. If the gun is inoperable and not loaded, it fell on the robbery in the third degree. So even in the previous statute, this was not a robbery in the first degree.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Defendant Contends They Did Not Carry a Weapon During Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

On the afternoon of May 22, 2008, John Grant walked in Staten Island Bank. He went to the teller in one of the stations and gave a note that said, “I have a gun, Fill the bag. Don’t say anything or I’ll shoot.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teller, in her sworn statement, said she saw a firearm and just followed the instruction give to her. She got all the money in her station and placed it inside Mr. Grant’s bag. She handed the bag back to Mr. Grant, with $1,810 in it but kept the demand note. After Mr. Grant left, she locked the doors, and she informed the police of what happened. The police arrived at the scene and the detectives who responded took the video from the bank’s surveillance. They got still pictures from the video and after an investigation that lasted for four months, found Mr. Grant, and placed him in a line up for the teller to identify. The teller did identify him as the bank robber.

Mr. Grant filed an omnibus motion where he asked the court to dismiss the one count of first-degree robbery and on one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree. An omnibus motion is motions bundled together. He said it was not enough to say he was guilty of robbery in the first degree just because of the note, which said he was in possession of a weapon, that it was loaded, and it could be used against the teller. In the jury trial, the people said the possession of a dangerous instrument was not required in the determination of a first-degree robbery. The jury found Mr. Grant guilty of one count of robbery in the first degree and one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The Supreme Court was asked to review the case, and in their examination of the transcript of the hearing affirmed the charge of grand larceny in the fourth degree. They also lowered the charge for the robbery from the fist degree to the third degree. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the mere statement of a person he has a gun, and he would shoot is not enough to support the charge for a robbery in the first degree, according to a New York Robbery Lawyer who read the decision of the Supreme Court.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Defendant Contends Insufficient Evidence for Robbery Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Stanley Hedgeman was accused of robbery in the second degree, and the Trial court had ruled he was guilty. Mr. Hedgeman appealed against this ruling, saying it should have been dismissed because there was insufficient proof presented to show he committed the robbery while “aided by another person actually present.” This was Mr. Hedgeman’s main argument.

The Court of Appeals said the question they are asked to answer is whether Mr. Hedgeman, whose only participation was to wait outside the bank and drive the getaway vehicle is guilty of robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer mentioned the court further asked if a person who the victims did not know or seen, be convicted of robbery in the third degree for the crime of aggravated robbery in the second degree? They said to determine this, they must first interpret the words of the law that says, “aided by another person actually present.” Does it mean a person who was physically there or anyone who was actively part of the robbery even if not where the crime happened?

In the trial, the only evidence that the people was able to present was the testimony of the police officer who conducted the interview of the one who did the robbery. The office said the driver was identified by the accused bank robber, and the two discussed the robbery before it happened. According to the court, this does not mean the driver was close enough to be actually present or adequately involved. The testimony of the assistant bank manager, said a Long Island Criminal Lawyer, only said that he saw the suspect get in a car, and someone else was driving. He was not able to identify the driver, so it could have been another person.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Court Rules on Robbery That Resulted in Death of Victim

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged and convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree and two counts of robbery in the first degree. This was because he was part of a frustrated robbery where the victim died from a gunshot wound to the neck. One of the testimonies in the hearing said the defendant was part of a group of about fifteen teenagers. They approached the the victim, before he could enter a grocery store. It appeared that the defendant was known in the area for shoplifting and selling what he got. The group waited while he was in the grocery. The crowd moved to the bleachers of a recreation center nearby. One of the teenagers showed off a gun to the group.

Less than an hour later, six of the teenagers went back near the grocery store, and the defendant announced he was going to snatch the victim’s bag. Two of the six left, saying they did not want any part of it. A short time later, the defendant went out of the grocery store and along with his three other companions attacked the victim. The defendant was able to get free and hit the victim with a can while holding him against a wall. He then got his bag and said nothing will be taken from him. A shot was fired, said a New York Criminal Lawyer, and the defendant ran with his bag and the four on his heels. People said they heard about six to eight shots at around the time of the chase. The police did not find a bag with clothing, but found a knit hat and sweatshirt near the grocery store.

The defendant argued that it is impossible to have an attempted robbery in the first degree because one of the requirements is an unintended result of causing physical injury when a robbery is committed. They said that the attempt to commit a crime with an unintended result is not recognized by the law. The court changed the charge to attempted robbery in the third degree.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Court Rules on Two Robbery Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

In two unrelated cases of robbery, the same question was asked of the Court of Appeals. The question is whether the evidence plus their display of what appeared to be guns while committing a robbery enough to charge them robbery in the first degree. The first case is the people vs. Lopez, and the second is the people vs. Mendez. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both defendants were convicted of robbery in the first degree, which they appealed.

In the case of Lopez, the robbery took place on a New York street. he was with another man when he approached the victim with two other companions and declared it was a stick up. What they demanded was the victim’s radio. In the victim’s testimony, he said when the robbery was announced, the defendant placed his hand inside his pocket, as if he had a gun. The victim gave his radio, after which the defendant and the other man went in a car driven by a third man to leave the scene. He knew the defendant because he had played basketball with him several years before. The day after the incident, the victim saw the defendant on the street and identified him to the police as the one who held him up. He was convicted of robbery in the first degree for what appeared to be a gun in his pocket and robbery in the second degree on the theory he did it with another person.

The Mendez’ case happened in The Bronx. Mr. Mendez was standing near another man who was seated and when he passed, he was grabbed by the defendant from behind and pushed against a wall. He testified that the defendant demanded for everything he had and took his watch, ripped the chain from his neck and took $80 from his back pocket. The other man who was seated had his right hand under his shirt while watching them. The victim said he heard Mr. Mendez say to the other man not to show the gun to him. According to what a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer read, it happened some time while the robbery was taking place. In this case, the victim knew the defendant as he saw him at different times at a store near where he worked as well as by his tattoos.

Published on: March 7, 2012

Defendant Contends Double Jeopardy in Theft Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Magnus Thorbenson was robbed by John Williams, also known as Larry Johnson, with another person. They held a knife to him as he arrived at Betty Hill’s apartment in Bronx. Mr. Thorbenson said they took his car keys, and that he saw them take off with his vehicle. A New York Criminal Lawyer found out that six days later Mr. Williams and his brother were caught in Mr. Thorbenson’s car. Both were charged with possession of a stolen property in New York County. Because of the information provided by Mr. Thorbenson and Ms. Hill, the police was able to ascertain that the two were suspects in the robbery which occurred in Bronx.

The Bronx police was notified by the New York County Assistant District attorney that they will be going for an indictment in New York County and will keep then updated in the progress. As for the Bronx police, they had Mr. Thorbenson’s photographic identification of Mr. Williams. He was then charged with the robbery and arrested within a few days of the filing said a New York Petit Larceny Lawyer.

Less than two months after his arrest and arraignment in Bronx County, the New York County District Attorney had agreed to charge him with a misdemeanor. Mr. Williams plead guilty to this and was sentenced to ninety-day imprisonment. The New York County District Attorney did not ask for adjournment to give the Bronx District Attorney a chance to get an indictment, according to a New York Possession of Stolen Property Lawyer.

Published on: February 14, 2012

Court decides Risk Assessment in Light of SORA

by Stephen Bilkis

James Taylor was 21 when he broke into a New Rochelle home on May 2, 1975. Assisted by three other men, Taylor entered the home of a suspected drug dealer with the intention of stealing money from the residents. Asleep in the home were the alleged drug dealer’s wife and three daughters, who were aged two, five and seven. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the four men, who were armed and wearing masks, demanded money from the wife and threatened to kill the children when she stated she had none. After she repeated her claim that there was no money to steal, the men threatened to kidnap the youngest daughter and hold her for ransom.

One of the men took the girls’ mother into a bathroom just off the master bedroom and closed the door. While holding a gun to her head he told her he would kill her if she didn’t reveal where they hid their money. She was then tied, bound and locked in a closet. When she escaped, the men were gone, along with her two-year-old daughter. She called police, who arrived on the scene. An officer noticed a blue Datsun in the area, which was occupied by Taylor, another man and a little girl. Police attempted to stop the vehicle, which lead to a high-speed chase. Finally, the car collided with a light pole, allowing police to rescue the child and apprehend Mr. Taylor and the other man.

At a non-jury trial, Mr. Taylor was convicted of first degree kidnapping, first degree robbery, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and first degree burglary. He was sentenced to 20 years to life. In November 1995, Mr. Taylor was paroled and as a condition of his release, required to register as a Level Three sex offender. At a redetermination hearing held in 2005, a Westchester County Court found that the Sex Offender Registration Act was unconstitutional in Mr. Taylor’s case and that he was not subject to its requirements. In April 2007, the court’s decision was reversed on appeal and a new hearing requested. The case was then forwarded to the Westchester County Supreme Court.

Published on: February 13, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Offender Classification

by Stephen Bilkis

In August 2002, Justin Palmer was accused of sexually molesting a 15-year-old girl in Florida. Five months later, he participated in an armed robbery of another Florida home. He pled guilty to both crimes and was sentenced to five years in prison. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, after being released, he moved to Green County, New York. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders completed a risk assessment which classified Mr. Palmer as a Level One offender.

The prosecutor later argued that the Board failed to assign an additional 30 points based on Mr. Palmer’s conviction for the home 2003 home invasion. County Court determined that the robbery, while not a prior crime, should still be considered as an aggravating factor which would justify upgrading Mr. Palmer’s classification to a Level Two offender. Mr. Palmer subsequently appealed this decision to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department.

Specifically, Mr. Palmer argued that the prosecution failed to provide him and the County Court with the required 10-day written notice of their intent to seek a new offender classification. The court noted that this issue was never raised in County Court and therefore not subject to review. The appellate court also held that Mr. Palmer’s argument was without merit since the court record demonstrated that the he was well aware of what the prosecution was attempting to do with regard to upgrading his classification status. Therefore, his claim that his due process rights were violated was unfounded.