Published on:

Defendant was not Fully Informed Prior to Filing a Waiver


This is a case for appeal. The respondent in the case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Jay Jomar Bradshaw. The case is being heard in the Second Judicial Department in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Jay Jomar Bradshaw, the appellant, is appealing a judgment that was made by the Supreme Court of Kings County. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the judgment convicted Bradshaw of rape in the first degree. He pled guilty in the case. The appeal is to suppress identification testimony that was made in the case.

Case Background

In the original hearing for this case the Supreme Court denied the suppression of the identification testimony. When this was denied the defendant was given the option to plead guilty to the charge of first degree rape. He was told that if he entered a guilty plea that he would be imprisoned for nine years.

The defendant was advised to the fact that he was agreeing to a nine year prison term in return for his plea of guilty. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was told that he was also waiving his right to appeal in the case. He was also informed about the mandatory fees that would be paid out of the inmate fund.

The defendant was asked if he understood that he was giving up his right to appeal. The defendant asked a question about the fees and was never asked again about whether or not he understood that he did not have the right to appeal this decision.

The defendant signed a waiver of appeal, but there is no evidence that this waiver was explained to him in detail. The defendant states that he was forced to plead guilty in the case by his lawyer. He also claims that the waiver of his right to appeal is not enforceable as he was never given an explanation of what the waiver met. There were no measures taken to ensure that he, who is a first time felony offender with a history of mental illness, fully understood what he was signing.

Court Discussion and Decision

The court agrees with the defendant on the fact that he was not fully informed about signing the waiver for appeal in the case. For this reason, the right to appeal is granted. The defendant wishes to have the identification testimony from the original hearing suppressed.

There were two witnesses called during the trial, Detective Joseph Lindor and Detective Edward Narvaez. Detective Narvaez conducted the investigation and Detective Lindor conducted the identification procedure. The evidence provided in the case stated that the defendant was seen in the area where the rape occurred. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the Supreme Court saw this as probable cause, but the facts behind this do not rise to the definition of probable cause. There was no description given and the account was merely an observation, which should not have been submitted in the courtroom.

After reviewing the case the court orders the original judgment in the case to be reversed. The plea of guilty is vacated. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the testimony of identification is suppressed and the case is being resubmitted to the Kings County Supreme Court for further proceeding.

The law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates are located in the metropolitan area of Manhattan. If you need legal advice you may contact one of our offices at any time. We offer free consultations with our team of lawyers. We are happy to discuss your case with you and help you determine what your legal options are.

Contact Information