New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: July 24, 2013

Defendant Submits Application to Suppress Tangible Evidence in Search and Seizure

by Stephen Bilkis

A Suffolk County Police officer testified that on the sixth of October, he was on patrol in the Mastic/Shirley area in a marked police car without a partner. He testified that while driving westbound in the area of the Shirley Motel. He states that while he was in the parking lot he saw a Mercury pulling out of the motel parking lot. The car made a left turn and headed east on the highway.

The officer passed the Mercury and states that he saw an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror. The officer turned around in the parking lot of the hotel and put on his lights to pull the vehicle over. The vehicle was driven by the criminal defendant.

Published on: July 20, 2013

Defendant Appeals Criminal Weapons Conviction in New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Monroe County Court. The judgment found the defendant guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree after he pled guilty to the crime.

Case Background

Published on: July 18, 2013

Defendant’s Probation was Revoked, New York Appellate Court Weighs In

by Stephen Bilkis

Two cases were brought before the court for resolution.

On the first case:

Published on: July 17, 2013

Defendant Appeals Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug Conviction, New York Appellate Court Affirms

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered 3 January 1974, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the third and fourth degrees (two counts each), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

The court affirms judgment.

Published on: July 14, 2013

Defendant Moves that Indictment is Dismissed in the Interests of Justice

by Stephen Bilkis

The criminal defendant man was indicted for the crimes of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree. On August 10, 1978 the defendant moved for a dismissal of the indictment on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, although timely notice to that effect was served upon the district attorney. On August 25, 1978 the accused man’s motion was heard. The complainant conceded that the defendant man was not notified to appear as a witness before the grand jury, but would not consent to a dismissal on that ground. The complainant moved that, instead, the indictment be dismissed in the interests of justice. The defendant joined in the complainant’s motion and the indictment was dismissed on that ground.

Thereafter, on August 28, 1978, the complainant’s instant application for leave to resubmit was argued. The complainant alleged that through inadvertence, leave to submit the charges to another grand jury and to make the dismissal conditional upon the defendant testifying under a waiver of immunity was not requested. Credit card fraud was not involved.

Published on: July 13, 2013

Court Discusses Why Insanity Plea Fails

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted on two counts of robbery in the second degree. But, he pleads not guilty to both indictments, with a reason of insanity and he was thereafter sent to the hospital for observation. The hospital reported that he was unable to understand the nature of the criminal charges and to make a defense. The court then transported him to the state hospital. Later, the man was pronounced recovered by the state hospital, but at the court’s direction he was sent to another hospital for re-examination. The hospital reported that he was still unable to understand the nature of the charges and to make a defense. The man was again committed to another state hospital. Consequently, the man appeared in county court contending that he was capable to stand on trial for his charges.

After a hearing, he was remanded to the state hospital for further treatment. Thirteen days later, the man escaped from the hospital and was at large. He was thereafter indicted for the crimes of kidnapping, robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree and assault in the second degree. The court then committed the man to the psychiatric division which reported that the man was normal, and was capable of understanding the charges against him and of making his defense.

Published on: July 12, 2013

Court of Appeals Says Dismissal of Indictment Improper

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 29, 1953, the accused man was indicted, by long form indictment, on four counts of common-law larceny–one count of grand larceny and three counts of petit larceny. None of the counts alleged that he made use of false or fraudulent representations in the course of accomplishing the various thefts. Under the circumstances, criminal evidence of such representations could not be received over his objection. When the complainant sought to introduce such evidence during the course of the trial, the accused man objected. Thereupon, acting pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court permitted the complainant, over the accused man’s objection, to amend the indictment by adding four new counts, each the same as the four original counts, except that allegations of false pretense and fraudulent representation were included in the new counts. The accused was thereafter found guilty only of count 5 (grand larceny in the first degree by false pretenses), the other 7 counts having been dismissed. The judgment of conviction was reversed by the court and the indictment was dismissed. The dismissal of the indictment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the trial court was without statutory authority to grant the amendment of the indictment.

On November 9, 1955, the accused man was indicted for grand larceny in the first degree committed as a result of false pretenses and fraudulent representations, the indictment being for the same crime charged in count 5 of the prior indictment, as amended at the trial.

Published on: July 10, 2013

Defendant Contends Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

The criminal defendant and two co-defendants were indicted for multiple counts of forgery and grand larceny for having endorsed and cashed New York State employment checks over a three year period. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and was to receive a sentence of 1-1/2 to 3 years. The plea was vacated because the minimum sentence for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree was 2 to 4 years. However, the parties agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the reduced, lesser included, crime of Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and receive the previously agreed upon sentence of 1-1/2 to 3 years. In his allocution the defendant stated that the value of the stolen property, which he received, was less than $1500.00 while the elements of the crime of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree required that the value of the property exceed that amount. In the minutes of the plea proceeding supplied by the defendant, he is not advised of his right to appeal.

The defendant’s motion sought to have his sentence set aside twenty-six years after it was imposed. The grounds for such relief are statutory and require a showing that the sentence was unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law. Bail reduction was not sought.

Published on: July 9, 2013

New York Court Discusses Use of Long Form Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was charged of four counts of common law larceny, one count alleging grand larceny, first degree, and three counts of petit larceny. This indictment was prepared in accordance with Section 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is commonly known as a ‘long form indictment.’

A Grand larceny case said that when the People sought to introduce criminal evidence at the trial that the defendant made use of a false or fraudulent representation or pretense in the commission of the larceny, it was met with an objection by the defendant that such testimony was inadmissible since the indictment failed to meet the requirements of Subdivision 1 of Section 1290-a of the Penal Law which provides as follows: ‘if the defendant made use of any false or fraudulent representation or pretense in the course of accomplishing, or in aid of, or in facilitating the theft, evidence thereof may not be received at the trial unless the indictment or information alleges such representation or pretence.’

Published on: July 7, 2013

Defendant Claims Constitutional Rights Were Violated in DUI Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case involving a Hispanic criminal defendant who was stopped and taken into custody by police officers for DWI. The defendant evaded a toll booth in a “cash only” lane without paying the required toll. The defendant was brought to the police department and was shown a video in the Spanish language explaining the process of taking breath tests. Having understood the same, the defendant complied and allowed the police officers to take his breath test. However, defendant asserted that he was not offered the opportunity to perform the standard coordination test.

During the trial, the defendant argued that his constitutional rights were violated when the police officers took his breath test but did not allow him to take the standard coordination test for the reason that he, allegedly, do not understand English. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and several other motions which include a motion to suppress the videotape of the administration of the breath test and to set aside the verdict ad dismiss the charges on the ground that defendant’s federal constitutional rights were violated. The People filed an opposition to the said motions.