New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: October 5, 2012

Suffolk County Court Raises Sex Offense and Risk Level of Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a woman who was convicted of several felony sex crimes after admitting that she had sexually abused a two year-old. After evaluating her Sex Offender and Risk Level, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders determined that she should be rated Level 1. Her score of 70 was the highest possible in the Level 1 category. The Board believed that she should be rated Level 3 as a high risk offender for her sex crimes. A hearing to determine whether her status should be raised was held on December 8, 2005 in the Suffolk County Court.

The Sex Offenders Registration Law that is in place to guard society from sex offenders who have been convicted of sex crimes uses a point system to determine which level the offender should be placed on. In exceptional cases, the Court will intervene to change the level, but this is not the norm. Any judge may change the level as he or she sees fit, depending on the facts of the case involving the sex crime offender. The Court is not bound by the recommendations of the score assigned to the offender. Other factors that may be considered are the offender’s admissions, evaluation of probation, parole, victims’ statements, or other information.

Published on: October 4, 2012

Court Finds thats Multiple Trial Delays by Counsel Have Prejudiced the Defendant’s Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was charged with driving criminal violations involving driving under intoxication (DUI). The complaint alleges that defendant operated a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition. In the blood alcohol test that was conducted, alcohol was found in his blood. The court proceedings encountered several delays. The defendant informed his attorney that the court required him to be present and ready for trial. The same was also required on the part of his counsel. The court said that it was possible that the counsel might be punished if he did not appear on the date fixed by the court.

The record of the case revealed that the court was about to adjourn at the end of the day but waited for the counsel to arrive. The counsel expressed his view that he would not be ready for trial until a given date. But the judge said that parts of the court were not available at that schedule due to renovation work and judicial vacations. The defendant said that he was scheduled to begin trial on his another case in one week, and he could not proceed to trial before that because he needed time to prepare for such upcoming trial.

Published on: October 2, 2012

Court Discusses Constitutionality of DUI Checkpoints

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case was charged with a criminal violation as regards vehicle and traffic law. The police officer involved in this case was assigned to a DWI checkpoint. In accordance with the procedures that are required, every vehicle was stopped and every driver was asked if he or she had been drinking. If the driver answered affirmatively, he or she was asked to submit to a test.

The defendant entered the checkpoint area and in response to the officer’s question indicated that he had been drinking. The defendant exhibited the classic signs of intoxication, slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes, an odor of alcohol and unsteadiness on his feet. The defendant agreed to submit to the test and the results indicated alcohol content. The defendant was arrested and taken to the precinct. The officer told the defendant that he would be given an examination and that if his blood alcohol content registered a lesser percentage, he would be released; that if he refused to submit to the test, his license would be revoked; and if the results would be unfavorable for him, his license would be suspended. The test was conducted two hours after the arrest

Published on: September 30, 2012

New York Court Discusses Exclusionary Rule in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On April 5, 2000 at around five in the evening, a Johnson City Police Department Officer got a call from a confidential informant who was well known to the officer. He had provided reliable information in the past that had proven valuable in the prosecution of several cases that were both misdemeanors and felonies.

The informant told the police officer that a black male who was known by the street name of “Rabbit” was on his way to a third floor apartment at 20 Willow Street to sell cocaine. The informant stated that Rabbit drove a reddish-brown Volvo. The officer and his partner went to 20 Willow Street which was just down the street from the Police Department at 42 Willow Street. At around five in the evening, they got another call from the informant who stated that Rabbit did not get off work until six and that he would go there from work.

Published on: September 29, 2012

Defendant Appeals Drug Charges Based on Improper Interrogation by Police

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of a trial court convicting a 44-year old New Yorker upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of heroin and cocaine. According to sources, police officers arrested the defendant while seated in an automobile pursuant to a parole violation arrest warrant and a bench warrant. Found in the defendant’s vehicle were a pistol, ammunition and a hypodermic needle. Taken from the defendant’s person were glassine envelopes containing heroin and cocaine. A search of the defendant’s apartment resulted in the seizure of additional drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Following indictment on various weapons and charges on drug crimes, the defendant moved to suppress the confession he made to the police officers after his arrest and the evidence seized from his person and his apartment. The trial court suppressed the evidence taken from the apartment but denied the motion in all other respects. The defendant also moved for the dismissal of his drug possession charge on the ground that the evidence before the grand jury was insufficient to establish the offense. The motion was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge in full satisfaction of all charges and received a bargained-for indeterminate sentence of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment. His appeal then followed.

Published on: September 27, 2012

Defendant Contends He has Transactional Immunity from Grand Jury Questioning in Other Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A 45-year old man was charged in a single-count indictment with selling six grams of cocaine to a state police undercover officer. The man applied for a writ of prohibition on the ground that the prosecution was barred because he had automatically received transactional immunity by being compelled to testify as a witness before a grand jury in connection with the investigation of an unrelated homicide.

The petitioner was interrogated before the Grand Jury concerning a confrontation that he had with the homicide victim. The petitioner related that he has previously used the man as an intermediary to buy cocaine in quantities of one eighth to one quarter of an ounce and that, on the date in question, the man had accused him of “going over his head on a drug buy” by dealing directly with the drug supplier. The petitioner also admitted that before the date of their confrontation he would reward the man for obtaining cocaine for him by giving him a portion of the purchased drugs and that the man had, before that date, frequently visited petitioner to obtain drugs. However, prior to the argument, the petitioner had told Shills not to approach him for drugs because he had another person in “the business end of the drugs.”

Published on: September 26, 2012

Defendant Files Motion to Dismiss Manslaughter Charge Based on Lack of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged in this case for manslaughter which also means doing certain acts that led to the death of another person. The court also charged the defendant for drug possession. According to the accounts of police investigation, the defendant was guilty of heroin possession and selling of illegal substance. The victim died because the victim injected heroin into his body. The heroin and drug paraphernalia came from the defendant. The defendant knew that a large dose of heroin can be dangerous and fatal.

Published on: September 24, 2012

Defendant Appeals Admissibility of Post Conviction Witness Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

When courts deal with witnesses and their testimony, sometimes-unexpected things happen. When they do, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what testimony can cause a reversal of the verdict and demand a new trial. The Supreme Court has the job of determining matters of law. They are not there to try the cases that are presented to them. They only rule on the matters of law contained within the cases that they get. Their job is to uphold a conviction of a trial court or to overturn it. They cannot find a defendant guilty or not guilty.

In the case at hand, in a pretrial hearing, the state made the defense aware that they intended to produce a witness at trial who through testimony would offer proof of some uncharged crimes that could be attributed to the defendant. The testimony disclosed that the witness to a homicide was working in a restaurant four years after the crime when the defendant came in.

Published on: September 23, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Conspiracy Law in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York court heard a case on June 20, 2003 relating to the conspiracy to sell drugs in a housing project. The court dismissed the first count of the indictment charging a conspiracy in the first degree. The state moved to reargue the portion of the court’s June 20, 2003 decision. The state submitted a memorandum that detailed the 66 counts of sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school per the court’s direction.

The Supreme Court looked first at the background of this first count on the indictment. The grand jury was presented with a case to establish the existence of what is commonly known as a “wheel conspiracy” to sell drugs. The objective was to sell drugs in a public housing project in Brooklyn. While some of the members of the conspiracy were juveniles, none of the juveniles were responsible for any of the class A felonies that were charged. The juveniles were used as front line contacts. When an undercover police officer requested an amount of drugs that the juvenile could not produce, he was introduced to one of the codefendants, Warren. The transaction which was a felony but not class A was completed. Several months later the undercover officer arranged to meet with Mr. Warren and this time a class A felony drug transaction occurred. Following this initial transaction, the undercover officer transacted three additional class A felony drug purchases from Mr. Warren.

Published on: September 22, 2012

Supreme Court Discusses Resentencing Guidelines in Drug Felony Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

The Supreme Court is often faced with evaluating the requests of offenders who are attempting to reduce their sentences in prison. This is especially true as it relates to indeterminate sentences. Indeterminate sentences are those sentences that have no definite length or end date. The offender is given certain criteria that he or she must meet before being considered for parole. Until they meet the criteria, they stay in prison no matter how long it takes. Many of these offenders spend this time applying to the court to reevaluate their sentence and give them a determinate sentence instead.

The criteria for resentencing on a class A-II drug felony can be more restrictive than the criteria for resentencing under CPL §440.46(1). To be eligible for resentencing under this category, the offender must still have a minimum of three years left to serve on that sentence. The legislature apparently was attempting to prevent resentencing the inmate who was already on parole at the time that they make the request by applying this three-year limitation.