Published on:

Court Dicusses an Initial Robbery Conviction


This case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court. The appellant of the case is Donald Booker. He is being represented by Patrick R. Garcia from Brooklyn. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York, et al. The respondents are represented by the office of the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles J. Hynes with Camille O’hara Gillespie, Peter R. Chatzinoff, and Barbara D. Underwood for counsel. The case is being heard before Kooper J.P., Rosenblatt, Harwood, and Miller, JJ.


A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a previous judgment made by the Supreme Court of Kings County. The previous judgment found the defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree through a verdict by a jury and an imposing sentence.

The defendant is appealing the review of the denial of an omnibus motion to suppress identification testimony in the case, the statements that he made to the law enforcement officials, and physical evidence of the case.

Case Background

The defendant and another individual were observed by an eyewitness removing items from an apartment. The eyewitness lived across the street from the apartment in question. When the witness saw what was going on he dialed the emergency telephone number “911” and reported the incident. He gave his name, phone number, and reported that there was a robbery in progress at the building across the street. The eyewitness described the two robbers by skin color, sex, and clothing.

Police officers responded to the scene within a few minutes and saw the defendant and another individual were the only people in the area that matched the description given by the eyewitness. The two were on the sidewalk at the location that was specified in the radio transmission that the officers had received. The defendant and other individual were hailing a cab. There was a tape deck and television beside them. These items were identified by their serial number as belonging to the person who lived in the described apartment. The apartment showed signs of being illegally entered.

The police officer questioned the defendant and the other individual and while seeking an explanation noticed a bulge in the pant leg of the defendant (possession of a weapon). He discovered a crowbar during a limited search. A pat down frisk of the defendant produced jewelry and several other items that were identified as belonging to the resident of the apartment.

Court Discussion and Verdict

During the suppression hearing the eyewitness and the two police officers gave testimony in the case. When reviewing the case the court finds that the police were given reasonable cause to suspect the defendant and the other individual of committing or attempting to commit a crime. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said that during the suppression hearing one of the officers testified that he believed that the bulge in the defendants pant leg was a weapon, which justifies the self protection searches that were conducted. While no weapon was found, other items that offered evidence that a crime was committed were found.

The court finds that the trial court was not wrong to deny the suppression of the evidence in this case as it was relevant and justly found. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said for this reason the court rules that the prior judgment is affirmed and the appeal made by the defendant in the matter is denied.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers law offices in the city of New York. We have a team of lawyers who are willing to help you through any type of legal matter. You may contact one of our offices at any time to set up a free consultation to discuss your legal issues.

Contact Information