A New York Criminal Lawyer said that this is a proceeding that transpired in January 2010 wherein the court presided over a jury trial conducted under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law to determine whether respondent currently has a mental abnormality as defined by MHL§10.03(i).
On 13 January 2010, the jury returned a verdict that respondent did not have a mental abnormality.
A Lawyer said that, in a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, defendant appealed the order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County, dated February 10, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 22, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the sex crime of sexual misconduct, placed him under the supervision of the “Probation Department of the County of Queens” for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 22, 2004.
A source said that, defendant in another separate case for the crime of rape also filed with the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, an application for writ of error coram nobis to set aside a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, sentencing defendant as a second offender on his conviction in New York of second degree assault. Defendant was found to be a second offender because of an alleged prior conviction in California of assault with intent to commit rape. The defendant had been charged in California with assault with intent to commit rape in violation of California statute and had pleaded not guilty. The California transcript indicated that court found defendant guilty as charged in the information. Thereafter defendant was sent to a California mental institution. It was the contention of the defendant that the California proceedings did not constitute a judgment of conviction under California laws and that therefore he did not have a prior felony conviction.
In this criminal case, the defendant appealed from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 24, 1995, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree and rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered July 24, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree. A Lawyer said that, by decision and order of this court dated November 24, 1997, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court has filed its report.
The issue in this case is whether defendant may withdraw his plea in the interest of justice.
This is a juvenile delinquency petition filed by the respondent who has committed acts which, if he were an adult, would have been categorized as attempted rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first and third degrees, rape in the third degree, forcible touching and sexual misconduct.
This petition revealed that on January 2, 2010, the respondent, a minor, committed multiple sex offenses against the victim who was also a minor. The deposition given by the victim stated that at approximately 12:00 o’clock in the morning on January 2, 2010, the respondent put his fingers inside her vagina and moved them in and out. The victim told the respondent to stop but then he put his penis inside her vagina and kept it thereat for a few minutes. The victim said that she kept trying to tell the respondent to stop and that she tried to get up but couldn’t do since the respondent kept on pushing her down. The victim was just eleven year old.
This an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County rendered July 8, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. A source said that, the defendant was charged and convicted of robbing the complainant at knife point on August 4, 1987, at approximately 11:30 P.M. Accordingly, to her trial testimony, the complainant had been beaten and raped by a different assailant prior to the robbery. The rape allegedly occurred in an apartment located on 89th Avenue and 162nd Street in Queens. After the rape, the complainant left the apartment and was walking to a nearby hospital when she allegedly met the defendant. She testified that she had previously met the defendant when he dated her sister in June 1987.
A Lawyer said that, she further testified that the defendant approached her and asked whether she had been raped. After she replied that she had, the defendant told her to wait in front of a nearby building while he obtained a gun in order to apprehend the rapist. Instead, the defendant returned after several minutes, allegedly pointed a knife at the complainant’s face, and demanded jewelry from her. She complied by handing over three rings. The defendant then took the rings and rode away on a bicycle. The complainant also testified that she ran to a hospital, four blocks away, immediately after the robbery. She was admitted to the hospital and discharged two weeks later, at which time she reported the subject robbery to the police.
This is a case wherein defendant moved for an order to grant inspection of the Grand Jury minutes ad dismissing or reducing the relevant counts of the indictment as not supported by legally sufficient evidence.
The defendant likewise moved for an order of dismissal on the indictment on various grounds arising out of a defective grand jury proceeding.
The is a case where defendant filed a motion for leave of court to present additional arguments on appeal for a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on December 20, 2001. Said judgment, subject matter of this petition, was rendered by decision and order of the court on February 23, 2004.
The Court has ruled to recall and vacate the order and decision issued by the Supreme Court and substituted the same based on the memorandum and papers filed in support of the motion and other documents filed in relation thereto.
The defendant was charged with two counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, a D violent felony, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, an A misdemeanor. A Lawyer said that, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the defendant pled guilty, under count one to the lesser charge of Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, an A misdemeanor, and under count three to Endangering the Welfare of a Child, an A misdemeanor, in satisfaction of the indictment.
A source said that, prior to sentence, the Court notified the defendant that based upon his conviction for Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree and in accordance with the public notification and disclosure provisions of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, commonly referred to as “Megan’s Law”, the Court intended at the time of sentence to certify the defendant as a sex offender as required by Correction Law § 168-d and to assign a risk assessment level of 3 to the defendant using override provision (iv) of the Risk Assessment Guidelines established by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders pursuant to Correction Law § 168-1(5). The defense counsel was given the opportunity to review the presentence report prepared by the Probation Department with an attached clinical assessment from Child Abuse Prevention Behavior Associates.
A defendant who pleads guilty to Rape in the Third Degree by way of an Alford-Serrano plea, notwithstanding his claims of innocence, is convicted of a felony. Accordingly, he is subject to the collateral consequences of that conviction to include being classified under the Sex Offender Registration Act and being subject to take an HIV test upon the request of the victim. The defendant was indicted in 1994 in a twenty-eight count indictment charging that he engaged in sexual relations with his 15 year old daughter, during a three month period. A Lawyer said that, the defendant entered into a negotiated Alford-Serrano plea to one count of rape in the third degree with the assistant district attorney, with the knowledge and consent of the victim’s mother. The court in view of the representations of the prosecutor, and the defense along with the victim’s mother, accepted the plea bargain based on the fact that the victim was of limited intelligence that would be unduly traumatized by testifying in court against her father. While the defendant maintained his innocence he claimed that a jury might convict him of rape in the first degree rather than the statutory rape charge to which he pled.
A Lawyer said that, defendant argues that since he took an Alford-Serrano plea, whereby he maintained his innocence, yet acknowledged that the prosecutor may have been able to obtain a conviction it should not be used against him in calculating his classification as a “sex offender” pursuant to the SORA.
The defendant was charged with violating N.Y. Correction Law section 168-f(3) duty to register and to verify pursuant to his classification as a class three sex offender. Defendant moves to dismiss people’s charges pursuant to N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law sections 170.30(5) and 170.40 in the interest of justice. A Lawyer said that, the Board of Examiners recommended that the defendant should be classified as a class three sex offender due to the defendant’s prior felony conviction of manslaughter in the First Degree for the burglary and “attacking to death a 79-year old landlord” and the sexual assault committed against a minor, which occurred six months after his release from prison. Based upon the Board’s recommendation, a Nassau Sex Crime Lawyer said that, the Court declared the defendant a class three sex crime offender on August 21, 1996. From that date until the present time, the defendant has been required to appear before the Nassau County Police Department every 90 days to register as a class three sex offender.
A source said that, the defense counsel alleges that from May 13, 1996 until June 13, 2002 the defendant had no contact with the criminal justice system. The defendant acknowledged that he was provided written notice of his May 22, 2002 appointment with the Nassau County Police Department; however, he failed to appear. On June 6, 2002 the defendant reported to the Nassau County Police Department that he did not appear at his May 22, 2002 appointment because he “forgot.” On June 13, 2002, a warrant was issued for the defendant’s arrest for violating Correction Law 168-f(3). On June 13, 2002, the defendant signed a statement attesting to the fact that he knew he was required to verify his address but forgot to appear on May 22, 2002.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7