New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Explains Sentencing Guidelines for Drug Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

New York is in the process of correcting a situation that involved handing out indeterminate sentences to drug offenders. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act and the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 are efforts to correct some of the issues that have plagued the fair sentencing of drug crime offenders in New York. Political agendas and ill-advised legislators, decided that indeterminate sentencing would reduce crime and make them look tough on criminals. What it created instead was an overcrowding of the prison system with offenders who had no idea if they would be incarcerated for a day or ten years. That instability in their situations caused undue stress on the inmates and increased violence in the system. The indeterminate sentencing system was also found to be unfair. Two people would be arrested at the same time and one would get probation and the other might get an indeterminate sentence not to exceed ten years. These were much harsher sentences than even some violent offenders were receiving. Studies were conducted that revealed many more serious results of indeterminate sentences on inmates and the system. In fact, one of the most memorable studies demonstrated that female inmates were twice as likely to be given an indeterminate sentence as their male counterparts were. That was true even if they were arrested at the same time for the same offense. The political get tough on drug crime agenda was back firing on the politicians who drove the movement. They were forced to rethink their program.

Under modern sentencing guidelines, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said these same criminals were getting less prison time and more alternative sentences like house arrest, half-way houses, and mandatory drug treatment. All of which relieve overcrowding in the prison system while supervising non-violent drug offenders at their own expense. The Drug Law Reform Act enabled people who were convicted of a Class B felony drug crime to apply to the courts for resentencing of their indeterminate sentences. The requirements for the program are that they must have an indeterminate sentence exceeding three years. They must not have committed a violent felony offense within ten years of the time that they make the application to have their case reevaluated. The ten-year look back rule does not start at the time of their offense, or at the time of their conviction. The clock starts at the time that they submit their request. It does not include any time that they were incarcerated for other offenses during that ten-year period. So if an inmate applied for resentencing in 2010. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said his sentence was indeterminate not to exceed 20 years. He was convicted in 2008 of a Class B felony drug crime. He committed a violent felony in 2000. He spent five years in prison as a result. That would mean that his violent felony conviction of 2008 adds five years to the ten years. In this example, he would not be exempt, even though his conviction was in 2000 and his request was in 2010, because of the five years in prison, he would have to have no violent crimes in his history going back to 1995. In this case, he would not qualify.

In one case, a Queens woman was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a jury found her guilty and imposed an indeterminate sentence in July of 2001. In April of 2010 she applied for resentencing. She was granted her request. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the District Attorney filed an appeal to the Supreme Court based on the fact that the resentence was invalid as a matter of law. When the court granted the woman’s request for resentencing, they failed to add on the time that she had been incarcerated on other offenses during the ten year period. That additional time that was added on puts her back to a violent offense that she committed in 1999 which was an offense that excludes her from being eligible for resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed her approval and returned her original sentence that she was serving prior to her request.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Says Evidence Must Establish Prima Facie Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is charged with assault in the third degree and resisting arrest, in violation of Penal Laws.

Defendant moves for an order dismissing the two information, or, in the alternative, granting a hearing, pursuant to People v. Huntley (a Huntley hearing), regarding statements disclosed by the People in a notice that has been served.

The People oppose the motions.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Defendants Allege Lack of Jurisdiction in Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Two women were working at a taco restaurant. Two men came in and held up the restaurant. At gunpoint, the two men took the two women employees to their car in the parking lot. They made the women ride in their car. They drove them to a dead end road in the next county and there they raped and sexually abused the two women.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that even while in the car, while they were still on the road going to the next county, one of the men pointed the gun in his possession at the women and fondled their breasts.

They were charged and convicted of robbery in the first degree, two counts of rape in the first degree, two counts of kidnapping in the second degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Temporary Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant and complainant are husband and wife. Immediately prior to his arrest, defendant and his wife were staying in separate cooperative apartments, each jointly owned by them, in the same apartment building in Manhattan. The larger of the two apartments was the couple’s marital home, while the smaller served as the wife’s office.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as a consequence of severe marital conflict between them, the wife was temporarily sleeping in her office, but had access to the larger apartment during the day. The defendant husband continued to occupy and sleep in the larger apartment.

On 24 June 1988, defendant was arrested and charged with Assault in the Third Degree and with Harassment, on the complaint of his wife; defendant, with intent to cause physical injury and to harass and annoy his wife, had punched her in the face and knocked out one of her teeth. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the alleged assault and harassment occurred after the wife had returned to sleep in the larger apartment and refused to let the husband in.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Defendant Moves for Supression of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 30, 1985 at approximately 10:00 P.M., the accused and his accomplice entered a supermarket in Island Park and accosted the manager who was in the process of closing the store. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused pointed a loaded pistol at the manager, cocked it and told him not to move, give the keys to the safe otherwise his head would be blown out. The two men forced the manager into the office where the safe was located. The accused heard footsteps so he gave the gun to his accomplice and left the accomplice to guard the manager while he investigated the footsteps he heard. On leaving the office, he observed the manager’s wife who had been in the store with her husband. The accused grabbed her and was pushing her toward the office when a loud shot was heard. The accomplice came running out of the office and told the accused that he had shot the manager accidentally, when the gun went off as the manager tried to free himself from a headlock. The accomplice took the keys from the manager’s body and they forced the wife to the rear of the store where they attempted to unlock the doors. Unable to find keys to all the locks they attempted to break them with a bolt cutter and some other tools they found in the store. At this point the night porter, who, unbeknownst to the accused and his accomplice, had been sleeping upstairs, came down and observed them trying to escape. He recognized the accomplice as a former employee of the store and he assumed that they had been accidentally locked in. He advised them that they would have to call a manager to unlock the doors. As the night porter, the accused and the accomplice began walking toward the front of the store, the night porter saw blood and part of the manager’s body through the office door and he realized what had occurred. The accomplice drew a gun and told the night porter that if he said anything they would be back to kill him. The accused threw a shopping cart through the plate glass windows in the front of the supermarket. As the accused and his accomplice ran through the parking lot, they were observed by a cashier who worked in the store. Although she did not recognize the accused, she was able to identify the accomplice.

By talking with the night porter and the cashier, the police learned that the accomplice was one of the perpetrators. They also learned from another store employee that just before closing time, the accomplice was seen in the store talking to his cousin who worked at the supermarket. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police interviewed the employee who initially stated that he had not seen his cousin since the early afternoon just before he left for work. Eventually he admitted that he had seen the accomplice and the accused after the incident when at their request he had driven them to a motel in Queens. Armed with this information and the assistance of the accused man’s brother-in-law, who was a New York City police officer, the police were able to arrest the accused and his accomplice less than 24 hours after the gun crime.

After their arrest, both the accused and his accomplice agreed to give statements to the police. The accused admitted that it was his idea to rob the supermarket and he described how he enlisted his accomplice’s aid. He also alleged that the supermarket employee had agreed to assist them in the plan by advising them when the store was about to close. He stated that the supermarket employee also consented to meet them after the robbery and hide the gun and any proceeds of the criminal act. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he went on to describe how he and the accomplice attempted to commit the robbery and the resulting death of the manager. The accomplice gave a confession, fully implicating himself in the crime, which was remarkably similar to the accused man’s confession. The police then interviewed again the supermarket employee and he gave a second written statement in which he claimed that he knew that the accused and the accomplice were going to rob the store. He admitted that prior to the robbery he told them that the store would be closing in a few minutes and he conceded that he received and hid the gun after the criminal act.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Statements Made by Defendant Used Against Him at Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused was arrested while driving his car a short distance from the scene of a possession of a weapon crime. After his arrest, the accused made certain statements to police which were used against him at trial. According to the statements, the accused had previously made the acquaintance of an individual and had agreed with the individual to drive two of the individual’s friends to a location where one of them was seeking a job. According to the statements, the accused drove the individual and his two friends to a house in Merrick. There the accused dropped off the individual’s friends. The accused consistently denied any knowledge that the individual and his friends intended to commit a robbery at the location to which he had driven them. However, the accused did state to the police that he had observed that there was a criminal possession of a weapon by one of the men during the drive from Queens to Merrick.

The accused man’s own testimony at trial, as well as the testimony of the individual and his friend largely confirmed the content of the accused man’s post-arrest statement to the police. The accused testified that he had met the individual’s friends on July 18, and had driven them to a friend’s house the following evening. The following morning, he agreed to drive the three men to the house in Merrick. He dropped the three men off at that location, but then the individual returned to the car, informing him that his friends were about to rob the people in the house. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused testified, consistent with his post-arrest statements that he had not known that a robbery had been planned. However, his testimony was inconsistent with his prior statements to the extent that he testified that he had never told a police officer that he had seen a gun in the car during the trip from Queens.

The individual testified that he had requested that the accused drive him and his two friends to Merrick. According to the individual, no one said anything to the accused concerning the true reason for the trip. The individual testified that after he and the other two men had gotten out of the car upon their arrival in Merrick, he noticed one of his friends take out a gun, at which point he returned to the accused man’s car, informed him of the robbery which was about to occur, and urged the accused to drive away. The individual insisted that the accused knew nothing about the robbery prior to it being committed.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Hears Motion to Supress Evidence in Gun Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal was filed by a man from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon as a felony upon a jury verdict and from a judgment of the same court upon his plea of guilty to violation of probation. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of the man’s motion to suppress certain evidence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the incident happened at about 11:30 p.m. when a detective was sitting in plain clothes in a parked car observing a bar and an officer was with him. Both of them observed a car with three black males passing by the bar at 5 m.p.h. The car stopped for about 1 to 2 seconds and the three men in the car turned their heads towards the bar. The car then continued down the street at 5–10 m.p.h. After making their observations, the police followed the car. Thereafter, the car stopped at a corner in deference to a stop sign and all three heads again turned to observe a bar near the corner. In half-way down the next block, the officers pulled the car over. As they were stopping, the detective observed that one of the man inside the car bend over in the front seat. The driver came out from the car and stated that he did not have the registration or his license because he had forgotten his wallet. The two other males were also unable to produce identification. The latter two were then asked to get out of the car. The officer began questioning the other man who he observed that the hands were in his pockets. When the officer instructed the man to remove his hands from his pocket, the officer observed a bulge in his right side pants’ pocket. The officer conducted a pat down and the bulge felt like steel. The officer believed that the item was a blade, but when the man removed it from his pocket, it revealed that it was a clip with five .25 caliber bullets. The officer told his co-officer that there was probably gun around. The other officer quickly search for it and found it under the front seat.

The officer was aware when he stopped the car that there had been two gas station stick-ups and several office break-ins in the vicinity. The officer stated that when he observed the behavior of the car and its occupants as it drove by, he felt that a crime was about to be committed. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on cross-examination the officer stated that he could tell all three looked towards the bar as they drove past it, by observing the backs of their heads. When the gun was found, all three were arrested.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Rules on Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On 23 March 1975 at about two o’clock in the morning, a murder occurred. It was witnessed solely by a nonparticipant to the crime which led to the defendant’s arrest.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the eyewitness had planned to arise at 2:00 A.M. of 23 March 1975 and set her alarm clock accordingly. Just before the alarm went off, she heard a noise that sounded like a fire cracker. She got up looked what it was. Thus, she turned off her alarm and walked to her front door. There, she then noticed that an automobile was parked right outside her house, on the north side of the street, facing west. Illumination was provided by a mercury vapor overhead streetlight. The car was parked under the light. The eyewitness viewed the killing from about 80 feet away.

The eyewitness saw the defendant fire a gun three times and run very quickly east on Park Avenue. A few minutes later, after she had dressed, she went out and saw the victim lying dead in the street. She notified the police immediately.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Burglary Leads to Death of Police Officer

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the second degree, possession of burglar’s tools, possession of a weapon in the third degree and unlawful possession of noxious materials.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the crime started out as a simple burglary but led to the death of a police officer.

The facts dictate that a police car pulled into an alleyway and a police officer shone a flashlight at defendant. She then got up and walked over to the police officer who asked her what she was doing there. She replied that she was looking for her cat. The police then asked for some identification and she presented an address book, but her name was not in it.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Considers Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Allegation

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff and defendant are brothers. The parties have been estranged since an event which occurred on Mother’s Day in 2003 at a family gathering. There have been numerous Family Court matters involving this family.

The allegations:

For the First Cause of Action – A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant has falsely accused plaintiff of a serious crime, namely filing a false police report, a criminal violation of New York State Penal Law. That accusation by defendant was a false and defamatory statement of and concerning plaintiff; specifically that she had filed a false criminal complaint against him for threatening her by brandishing a gun. Defendant made this false accusation to third parties, including but not necessarily limited to, family members.