Queens Rape 12
The People of the State of New York are the appellants in this case. The respondent of the case is Jay Jomar Bradshaw. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in New York.
The defendant pled guilty to rape sex crimes in the first degree in exchange for a sentence of nine years in prison followed by five years of supervision upon his release. The issue that is brought up in this case deals with the waiver for appeal.
The court determined that the record for the case did not sufficiently show that the defendant waived his right to appeal because it was unclear as to whether or not the defendant fully understood the information that was provided to him about waiving his right to appeal.
The court also agreed with the decision that was made by the Appellate Division that the testimony that concerned the identification of the defendant through a lineup should have been suppressed because the People did not establish probable cause for the arrest of the defendant. The Court affirmed the reversal in judgment for the conviction and sentence of the defendant.
The defendant was indicted by the Kings County Supreme Court for rape in the first degree as well as various other related charges. The alleged incident occurred on the 11th of May, 2004 in Brooklyn near an apartment complex. The defendant was arraigned in June of 2004 and was submitted for examination to determine if he was considered an incapacitated individual.
The defendant was evaluated by both a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Each of the doctors determined that the defendant was unfit for further proceedings in the case. It was determined that the defendant showed signs of regression. The psychologist also stated that the defendant had an inaccurate understanding of the legal process and seemed quite undisturbed about his current predicament.
The defendant was committed to custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health by an order made in the Supreme Court on the 9th of September. The defendant was committed to the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center where he was diagnosed as having Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood and anxiety. He received treatment over the next few months. Treatment included medications, group therapy, and individual therapy.
After treatment it was determined that he was ready for trial on the 3rd of March, 2005. However, in August of 2005, the defendant was sent for another examination and found to be unfit for trial. Through December of 2005 through February 2006, the defendant missed five scheduled appearances in court.
The defendant finally appeared in court in April of 2006. It was determined that the defendant was fit for trial, but would require a lot of support from his counsel during the process. During the next year and a half several plea proceedings were held. The plaintiff finally pled guilty to first degree rape in exchange for a nine year sentence followed by five years of probation.
Court Discussion and Decision
During the plea agreement the defendant was told about the fees that he would have to pay in both counties that he was charged in. He was also informed about giving up his right to appeal. However, the court did not fully explain that he was giving up his right to appeal and the defendant did not question it.
After reviewing the case it is found that the defendant did not fully understand the waiver that he was signing and for this reason the order is affirmed.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices located throughout New York City. We will be happy to discuss your legal issue with you at any time during a free consultation, whether you have been charged with drug possession, embezzlement, or kidnapping. You may contact us any time for advice.