Sex Crimes

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 14, 2012

Court Deals with Witness Testimony is Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Brian Fielding was charged with and convicted of multiple counts of sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. His criminal defense attorney challenged his conviction with the New York Court of Appeals, on the grounds that the testimony of his victims was insufficient to prove his guilt in connection with the sex crimes.

Specifically, Mr. Fielding argued that the testimony did not meet the corroboration requirement as set forth under New York law. Section 60.22 of the CPL and Section 130.16 of the Penal Law preclude a conviction for sex crimes based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice or victim.

The court of appeals noted that the corroboration requirement for consensual sodomy is the same as that needed for accomplice testimony. The court held that since Mr. Fielding’s victims were minor children no older than 14, the sex offenses could not be considered consensual within the scope of the statutory requirements.

Published on: February 13, 2012

Defendant Seeks to Reduce Sex Offender Threat Level

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1985, Juan Santos was convicted of one count of first degree rape, one count of second degree rape, four counts of first degree sodomy and four counts of second degree sodomy. The charges stemmed from claims brought by Mr. Santos’ two stepdaughters, who claimed that he forcibly raped and sodomized them on multiple occasions. Following his conviction, he was sentenced to a combined term of 25 to 50 years.

Mr. Santos’ criminal defense attorney filed a motion to set aside the verdict and this request was granted in 1991. The New York County Supreme Court was unable to determine why the conviction was overturned but the prosecutor in the case claimed they had arranged a plea agreement in which Mr. Santos would plead guilty to one count of first degree rape. In exchange, he received a sentence of 5 to 15 years, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

In September 2008, the court received a letter from the New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders concerning Mr. Santos’ risk level. The person who drafted the letter, Board Examiner Floyd Epps, stated that Mr. Santos had raped, sodomized, sexually abused and threatened the two victims over a period of several years. The letter also indicated that Mr. Santos claimed the charges were false and that his wife had encouraged the two girls to make up the story because she was angry that he was having an affair. In addition, Mr. Santos has denied committed the sex crimes he was charged with.

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.

Published on: February 13, 2012

Defedant Seeks to Overturn Sex Crime Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

Avery Maggio was charged with eight counts involving different sex crimes. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the charges were based on claims that he had sexually abused another child who rode the school bus with him on different occasions in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Mr. Maggio was convicted of three counts of committing a criminal sexual act in the first degree and two counts of first degree sexual abuse. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and subsequently appealed his case to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division, Third Department.

The appellate court was charged with determining whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to warrant a conviction. Mr. Maggio’s criminal defense attorney argued that while his client admitted engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with a minor child, the evidence did not prove that he ever compelled the victim to participate through verbal or physical force. Under New York Penal Law, forcible compulsion must be considered from the victim’s perspective and weighed against their age, the size and strength of the person perpetrating the sex crimes and their relationship to the victim.

The court noted that Mr. Maggio was four years older than the victim at the time the sex offenses occurred and that the sexual contact began when the victim was only nine. The victim testified that when he was 12, Mr. Maggio had threatened him with physical harm if he did not agree to the sex acts. The victim also said that on another occasion, Mr. Maggio had forced his head down and ordered him to perform oral sex. Mr. Maggio also allegedly grabbed the victim’s testicles, arms, legs and knees on other occasions and threatened to kill both him and his mother if he did not comply.

Published on: February 13, 2012

Defendant Moves for Forfeiture in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A 40-year old man was arrested and charged with several drug crimes and violations, including criminal drug possession of a controlled substance, criminal use of drug paraphernalia, unlawful marijuana possession, and unlawful possession of fire works.

The accused, despite the absence of the district attorney, was permitted to enter a plea of the crime of possession of a controlled substance, which is classified as a misdemeanor. A New York Criminal Lawyer reported that the DA argued that he is authorized to exercise his right to proceed for forfeiture asserting that such proceeding can be brought against a person not even charged or convicted of any crime. Thus, the DA said, forfeiture against one convicted of a misdemeanor crime is appropriate.

A review of relevant criminal laws discloses that a forfeiture proceeding may be brought for a “pre-conviction forfeiture crime.” The court deduced that the only crime for which a forfeiture may be sought and ordered in advance of a conviction are the felony of criminal marijuana possession in the first degree and the crime of criminal sale of marijuana in the first degree. While the law authorizes the commencement of a forfeiture action before conviction for what are clumsily called “post conviction” forfeiture crimes, which are crimes other than the denominated drug related charges called “pre-conviction forfeiture crimes,” the statute nonetheless expressly provides that a court may not grant forfeiture until the conviction has occurred, the court noted.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Supreme Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Almost every New York Criminal Lawyer is aware of the fact that for various sex crimes, sex offenders are set to register for them to be treated properly and also as a way to protect the rest of the citizens of the society. In this particular case to be discussed, there are three accused sex offenders who refuse to register under this legal act. All of them were involved with having committed kidnapping. They insist that their rights have been violated since there were no proofs that they really did it.

The first one accused is defendant #1. She was seen approaching a group of little children in the park and allegedly grabbed an eight year old kid. Her motive was to have a replacement of one of her own kids whom she has lost due to custody. The next one was defendant #2 who allegedly locked his girlfriend who has two little kids in her own apartment. The reason is that he did not want his girlfriend to break up with him. The last one is defendant #3 who employed a prostitute. When his employee decided to quit, he was accused of kidnapping the woman’s son so the woman would go back to working for him.

As per the Supreme Court’s judgment, all three should be assisted by a Bronx Criminal Lawyer under the Sex Offender Registration Act. But as already mentioned, they all protested and did not want to succumb to it. The main reason of the three is that they may be guilty of kidnapping but they were never found guilty of sexually abusing the minors they have abducted. But if SORA will be reviewed, it includes unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping in the list of crimes committed.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Acts with Minors Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A jury convicted David L. Perkins of numerous crimes arising out of his conduct in providing alcohol to and engaging in sex acts with his daughter’s teenage friends. County Court had imposed the maximum sentence, an entire sum of 36 years in prison.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, Perkins asserted that there was legally insufficient evidence to convict him of sexual abuse because the court had failed to establish that the victim was physically helpless but the court asserted that the victim’s testimony that she blacked out and “was so drunk that she didn’t know what was going on,” was sufficient to establish the presence of physical helplessness.

A Booklyn Criminal Lawyer who witnessed the trial said that each victim testified consistently and with particularity about the sexual acts committed against them by Perkins and to being provided with alcohol at Perkin’s house. The court said that contrary to Perkin’s testimony, the record clearly revealed that the victims were under the age of 17 at the time of the crimes. The court also stressed that although some of the victims could not recall the precise dates or times of the incidents, “any consistencies regarding date and time did not render all of their testimony incredible as a matter of law, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s resolution of this credibility issues”.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rules on Disturbing Sex with Minors Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In late 2002 and 2003, Phillip Riback, a pediatric neurologist, was charged with two indictments, later consolidated, with 39 criminal counts alleging that he had sex crimes with numerous male patients during medical examinations between 1997 and 2002. After pretrial proceedings in which some counts were dismissed, Phillip Riback went to trial on 30 counts. He was ultimately convicted of 28 counts, 12 felonies and 16 misdemeanors.

A New York Criminal Lawyer who followed the case, said that the convictions stem from the testimony of 14 boys, none of whom knew one another (except two were brothers), whose families consulted defendants for their sons’ various neurological problems. The boys described a variety of conduct that occurred for the most part after their parents complied with Riback’s request that they leave the boys alone with him in the examining room, at which time defendant encouraged them to play a “controlled spitting” game with him, tickled, hugged or kissed them or play-wrestled with them, pushed his erect penis against their bodies, held them upside down by their ankles or had the boys sit or lay on him, during which time Riback’s hands or face came into contact with the boys’ genitals, mostly over clothing (several described defendant’s direct –underneath clothing- contact with their penis), or the boys’ faces were pushed to Riback’s genital area over clothing. The lawyer said that all of the contact occurred in the subterfuge of a medical exam by Riback, often accompanied by warnings not to tell anyone.

Philip Riback’s conduct was first partially revealed in 2002, according to a New York Crimnal Lawyer, when one of the patient made revelations first to his mother and then to the Town of Colonie Police Department and the Department of Health’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), later providing a signed statement to the police recounting the extent of Riback’s sexual contact with him in December 2001, when he was nine years old. After another complaint by another family to OPMC of Riback’s conduct to his patients and came other allegations, Riback was arrested. The arrest was covered by the media and over 100 people contacted the police and 50 were interviewed, which leads to the subject indictment.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rule on Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A 37-year old man has been indicted for the drug possession, sale of a controlled substance and other drug related charges. Under the revised criminal laws relating to drug crimes, each of the crime charged is classified as an A–III felony, punishable by an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum period of which, for a first offender, is from one to eight and one-third years, and the maximum of which is life imprisonment.

The accused demanded for the dismissal of his indictment based on constitutional grounds. The accused specifically assailed the validity of certain criminal laws on the ground that these provisions do violence to his due process and equal protection rights and that they are inconsistent with the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Federal and New York Constitutions.

According to the court, the gist of the accused’s cruel and unusual punishment claim is that the penalty which has been legislatively imposed and must be judicially imposed, if there is a conviction, is too harsh for the alleged drug crimes. The accused argued that the quantities of heroin involved here are minute and that the entire amount of his gain from each of the transactions with which he is charged was $60.