This is a petition by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, dated November 10, 1983, in which after a trial, and settled that branch of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
The Court ruled reversing the order, the portion of the omnibus motion which seeks to suppress the introduction of physical evidence is denied. The case was reverted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant stands indicted for two counts of sodomy in the third degree, three counts of sodomy in the third degree, and one count of sex abuse in the second degree. The sodomy counts are Class E felonies and the sex abuse count is a Class A misdemeanor. All counts are “statutory” in nature, in that lack of consent is based upon the fact of infancy, of the victim having been 16 years of age at the time of the incidents involving him, the other having been 14 years of age, and lastly, 13 years old.
An Albany Sex Crime Lawyer said that defendant has moved to dismiss the indictment upon the grounds of insufficient legal evidence before the grand jury to corroborate the testimony of the alleged victims as required by Section 130.16 of the Penal Law.
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.
This is a case for judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR that was created by the petitioner, including his June 23, 2010 Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause, verified on June 23, 2010 and filed in St. Lawrence County Clerk’s office on July 9, 2010. Petitioner, who is a prisoner at the Riverview Correctional Facility, is stimulating the time calculation connected with his current imprisonment in DOCS custody.
A show cause order was issued by the Court on July 23, 2010 which was received by the respondent who immediately filed his answer with exhibits. The respondent was directed by the court to supplement his answer by including therein his entitlement to parole jail time in order to determine the correct computation of his penalty.
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.
The defendant was charged in Queens County of kidnapping in the first, eight counts, and second degrees; rape in the first degree, two counts; sexual abuse in the first degree, two counts; and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Thereafter, the defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of kidnapping in the first degree, four counts; rape in the first degree, two counts; kidnapping in the second degree; sexual abuse in the first degree, two counts; and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On 15 August 1996, the defendant was sentenced. The defendant appealed the judgment of convictions. According to the defendant, the Court erred by refusing to charge the jury as to the defense of duress and his sentence was excessive. The Appellate Division, Second Department modified the judgment by vacating the conviction of one count of sexual abuse, finding that no evidence pertaining to that count was adduced at trial. Other than that, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The defendant then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. However, that application for leave was denied. The defendant then moved to vacate his judgment of conviction and argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, among other things, because his trial counsel failed to have the serological evidence tested for DNA after the defendant denied any involvement in the rape. On 18 June 2001, the defendant’s motion was denied, and his claims were found procedurally barred pursuant to CPL 440.10 based on the fact that the allegations were in the record, and could have been reviewed on defendant’s direct appeal. The defendant’s claims were found by the court bereft of merit. The defendant then sought leave to appeal the denial of his motion to vacate judgment, and sought a writ of error coram nobis. A sargued by the defendant, his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the claims he raised in his motion to vacate. The Appellate Division denied both applications, viz.: defendant’s application for leave to appeal and his application for a writ of error coram nobis.
The defendant, pro se, now moved for an order directing that forensic Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing be performed on specific evidence; for an order vacating the judgment of conviction; and to have the defendant produced at any hearing.
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.
