New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 27, 2014

Police Officer’s act of reaching into the automobile and recovering the gun was unlawful

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 25, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by him to law enforcement officials.

A Queens Weapon Crime Lawyer said that, sometime between 1:00 A.M. and 1:15 A.M. on May 22, 1993, New York City Transit Authority Police Officer and her partner, were walking from the Queens borough train station to the Queens Plaza station when a car came speeding up to them and skidded to a halt. The two occupants yelled to the officers that someone in the car behind them had just shot a man in the head at the taxi stand. They did not indicate how they had obtained that information, but they pointed to the car directly behind them, the only other vehicle on the street, which was stopped at a traffic light. The Police Officer radioed for assistance and she and her partner ran to the car with their guns drawn. She approached the passenger side of the vehicle and directed the driver, the first person she observed, to put his hands up. As he did so, she saw a second and third pair of hands go up, and realized there were passengers in the front and rear seats. She had not initially seen the front seat passenger because he was slumped over toward the driver, and had to raise himself from that position in order to put his hands up. She later learned that the driver was the defendant. A codefendant, was the front seat passenger and another codefendant, was the rear seat passenger.

A Queens Felony Lawyer said that, the officers directed the defendant and the others to exit the vehicle. For safety reasons, they handcuffed the men, patted them down and had them lie on the ground. When the officers did not recover any weapons, the Police Officer asked, “Where’s the gun?”, and her partner replied that he did not know. Her partner then went to the car, reached under the front passenger seat and recovered a loaded .25 caliber gun. At that point, she realized that the two informants had left the scene. However, they returned, along with a third man, approximately 15 minutes after they initially spoke with the officers. The third individual, an eyewitness to the crime, identified codefendant as the shooter. The defendant and co-defendant were then arrest and taken to the precinct house, where the defendant made an unsolicited statement to a detective.

Published on: February 27, 2014

County Supreme Court

by Stephen Bilkis

A detective and a police officer, both wearing plain clothes, were patrolling a neighborhood of Queens in an unmarked vehicle. The area was known for gang activity. At some point during the patrol, the detective and the officer observed the defendant and another man walking down the street. Upon observing the defendant adjusting his right waistband, they stopped their vehicle. They then exited the vehicle, displayed their shields, and identified themselves as police. The defendant ran in the opposite direction. While the defendant was being chased by the detective, he removed a firearm from the right side of his waistband and threw it to the ground. The detective apprehended the defendant and placed him under arrest. The defendant’s attorney moved to suppress the firearm, and the Supreme Court directed a suppression hearing. After conducting the hearing, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the firearm. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

On the appeal from the judgment of conviction, the defendant argues that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing. Specifically, the defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to make opening and closing arguments at the suppression hearing, suggesting that counsel did not believe there was a basis for suppression. Further, the dissenting notes that the suppression court erred in making a factual finding that the criminal defendant dropped his weapon before the police chase and not during the chase itself.

Under the standard recognized in New York, counsel is effective when the defense attorney provides meaningful representation. In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance, care must be taken to avoid both confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according undue significance to retrospective analysis. While a single error may qualify as ineffective assistance, it may only do so when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Moreover, ineffectiveness claims must be viewed within the context of the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case. Standing alone, the waiver of an opening and/or closing statement is not necessarily indicative of ineffective assistance of counsel. Indeed isolated errors in counsel’s representation generally will not rise to the level of ineffectiveness, unless the error is so serious that the burglary defendant did not receive a fair trial.

Published on: February 26, 2014

There is a baby in the house

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, a a young man was found to be a criminal juvenile delinquent by the Family Court, and who was thereafter placed under the supervision of the New York City Department of Probation. He was placed on probation under specific conditions which included participation in a community based “alternative to placement” program for adjudicated juvenile delinquents administered by the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”). This community based “alternative to placement” program, known as the “Juvenile Justice Initiative” (“JJI”), was created to provide services to adjudicated juvenile delinquents who might otherwise have been placed in an institutional setting based, in part, upon recommendations provided made to the Family Court by the New York City Department of Probation and a Psychologist on the staff of the Family Court Mental Health Services Clinic.

Sadly, during the period in which he was placed under probation supervision, he was repeatedly arrested and subsequently indicted for the commission of violent criminal acts. As a result of these arrests, the probation imposed by the Family Court has been revoked and he has been placed in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services.

A New York Felony attorney said that respondent was born in June 1994, and in April 2010 a petition was filed in the Family Court alleging that he is a juvenile delinquent as defined by Family Court Act § 301.2(1). According to the petition, the respondent committed acts which were he an adult, would constitute the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, and Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree. In addition, the petition alleged that he violated Penal Law § 265.05 which makes illegal the possession of certain weapons by a person less than 16 years of age.

Published on: February 26, 2014

Penal Law §220.03

by Stephen Bilkis

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant, is charged with one count Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree under P.L. § 220.03. He moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the grounds that the original complaint was facially insufficient and as a result, his right to a speedy trial has been violated under C.P.L. § 30.30. The People oppose the defendant’s motion.

A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, the Police Officer is informed by the sworn statement of another Police Officer shield number 16694 that, on or about July 21, 2011 at approximately 8:10 p.m. at a location opposite 130 Palmetto Street in Kings County, New York State, the informant observed the defendant in possession of a quantity of cocaine which Informant recovered from the ground where co-defendant, dropped it. The complaint is accompanied by a supporting deposition from the Police Officer dated July 21, 2011 as well as a positive lab test for cocaine, dated July 29, 2011.

The issue in this case is whether defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the grounds that the original complaint was facially insufficient and as a result, his right to a speedy trial has been violated under C.P.L. § 30.30.

Published on: February 25, 2014

People v. Adorno

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Adorno

Court Discusses whether a Statutory Presumption was Applicable to the Defendant

The defendant along with his accomplices purchased 400 packets of heroin with an intention to sell the controlled substance in Rochester. They were pulled over by the state troopers after the car was driving in a slow and erratic manner and the automobile was searched. The packets of heroin along with a semiautomatic revolver were found in the car that defendant and his accomplice were in. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of weapon in the third degree. The defendant was convicted of all charges while his accomplices pled guilty to the charges criminal possession of controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of weapon in the third degree. The defendant appealed the conviction on several grounds which included defective Grand Jury proceedings, improper amendment of the indictment.

Published on: February 24, 2014

People v. Robinson

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Robinson

Court Discusses Inconsistent Verdict

The defendant was arrested and charged after he was alleged to have sold an undercover narcotics officer a glassine envelop which contained heroin on two separate occasions. The defendant was charged with two counts sale, two counts of possession with intent to sell and in the alternative two counts of simple possession for both days it was alleged that he sold the office heroin. The defendant was convicted by a jury on two counts of possession of a controlled substance and simple possession. The two counts of sale were dismissed after the defendant presented a witness who testified that the defendant was at his home in the Bronx when the sales were alleged to have occurred. The defendant’s New York City Criminal Attorney objected and requested that the jury return to deliberation to arrive at a proper verdict. The trial judge dismissed the two counts of simple possession on its own motion on the ground that the greater charge of possession with intent to sell included the charge of simple possession. The defendant was sentenced to a concurrent indeterminate term from one year to life imprisonment on each count. The criminal defendant appealed the decision on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent.

Published on: February 24, 2014

Special Narcotics Courts

by Stephen Bilkis

A confidential informant (CI) contacted defendant M, and offered him an opportunity to rob drug dealers of a valuable supply of narcotics and/or cash. M allegedly accepted the offer and engaged the three codefendants to be part of the robbery gang. The case detectives instructed the CI to tell the defendants that the robbery location was at 1981 Sedgwick Avenue in the Bronx. On or about 25 October 2004, it was alleged that the CI and the four defendants loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to the said location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

The Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts of the City of New York voted for an indictment against the defendants charging them with four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (2); four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 265.02 (4); and two counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.10 (1).

The defendants filed omnibus discovery motions. The People in response supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination pursuant to CPL 210.30 (2). After examining the grand jury minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions: (a) in light of the fact that the indictment did not contain a single narcotics-related charge, whether the Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts has subject matter jurisdiction?, and (b) assuming for the sake of argument it has, whether it also has geographic jurisdiction?

Published on: February 24, 2014

Criminal Term denied the motion

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 19, 1981, convicting him of petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of defendant’s pretrial motion which sought suppression of oral statements.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the testimony at the suppression hearing revealed that on October 28, 1980, defendant entered the Jamaica, Queens, and branch of the National Bank of North America and attempted to withdraw funds from a nonexistent account. The police were summoned and defendant was placed under arrest. While still in the bank, arresting officer Detective advised defendant of his Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to consult with an attorney. Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights, but remained silent when asked if he was willing to answer questions without an attorney being present. The Detective testified that from this he assumed that defendant did not wish to be questioned. Thereupon, the Detective brought defendant to the precinct, which was across the street from the bank.

A Queens Robbery Lawyer said that, once at the precinct, the Detective took defendant to a squad room to begin processing the arrest. Several minutes later, a former New York City police officer and now chief of security for the National Bank of North America, entered the room. After identifying himself, he informed the Detective that defendant was wanted in connection with a similar incident at another branch of the bank. According to the Detective, he did not speak with the defendant in the detective’s presence. While the detective may have left the former New York police and the defendant in the room for a time, there were other police officers present. He asserted that he made no promises or threats to the defendant. He also asserted that he did not ask the police officers to question defendant for him, nor did they prompt him to question defendant. He did, however, acknowledge that defendant may have been handcuffed to a chair at the time. After speaking with defendant, he stayed in the squad room another 15 or 20 minutes conversing with some of the detectives with whom he was acquainted.

Published on: February 23, 2014

People v. McKenzie

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. McKenzie

The Court Discusses Dismissal of a Lesser Offence where it was included in a Greater Offense

The defendant appealed his conviction of one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree pursuant to section 220.39 of the Penal Law, three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees in pursuant to section 220.26 and 220.03 of the Penal Law and unlawful possession of marijuana pursuant to section 221.05 Penal Law. The defendant was sentenced to one year on the seventh degree count of possession, concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years on the third degree count of possession and sale and $100 fine for unlawful possession of marijuana. The defendant’s conviction stemmed from the sale of a glassine envelope that was witnessed by two police officers. The police officers who witnessed the transaction recovered the envelope containing a bag of heroin. Further, a paper bag which the defendant possessed contained 19 glassine envelope of heroin along with a small quantity of marijuana.

Published on: February 23, 2014

Defendant feared New York’s drug laws

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the events leading to defendant’s conviction trace back to December 5, 1974 when a young man with an unsavory drug history, was arrested by the New York State Police in Steuben County for possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, a class A-2 felony punishable by a 15-year to life term. At the time of his apprehension, he was on bail pending an appeal from a 1973 conviction, based on a guilty plea for possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree, for which he had been sentenced to an indeterminate term of zero to three years at the New York Correctional Facility at Attica.

A New York Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, the young man, who at defendant’s trial admitted to being an inveterate user of drugs, including amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, marihuana and heroin, and a seller for profit to maintain his habit, was interviewed after his arrest on December 5, 1974 at the New York State Police substation at Painted Post. As found as a matter of fact by the trial court, during this questioning, an investigator of the New York State Police struck him with such force as to knock him out of a chair, then kicked him, resulting in a cutting of his mouth and forehead, and shortly thereafter threatened to shoot him. He testified that this abuse was administered because he refused to answer a question, that when struck his glasses flew off, that he was kicked in the ribs when down, that a chair was thrown at him, that he was also threatened with being hurled down a flight of steps, and that one of two uniformed State troopers who witnessed these events said, “I may as well forget about it. They would swear that I fell coming in the substation on the steps.”

A New York Felony Lawyer said that, following his seizure on December 5, 1974, the young man was held without bail at the Steuben County Jail until December 24, when he was released. By December 23, one of the officers involved in his case had received a lab report showing that the capsules found on the young man, which were the basis for his class A-2 felony charge and which had been purchased from defendant, were not controlled substances at all. Rather than being amphetamines of a type referred to on the street as “Black Beauties”, they were in fact nothing more pernicious than caffeine. However, he was not told of this until sometime later, at the trial of this matter after he had been used by the police as an informant in this case. This is a criminal situation.