New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: September 21, 2012

Defendant Questions Legal Sufficiency of Evidence at Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was arrested after selling approximately two ounces of cocaine to a confidential police informant in the City of Cortland. He was indicted and found guilty after a jury trial of one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance. County Court sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of 14 years followed by five years of post-release supervision and directed him to pay restitution of $2,400 to the Cortland County Drug Task Force for the buy money used in the undercover operation.

Initially, the records show that the defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial is not preserved because he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal with sufficient particularity. Nevertheless, as defendant also argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it is necessary to evaluate whether the elements of the crimes charged were sufficiently proven at trial.

Published on: September 20, 2012

Defendant Contends That Current Sentence for Felonious Drug Possession is Erroneous

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1962, a defendant was sentenced by a New York City Judge as a second felony offender for a crime to which the defendant had not pleaded guilty. The basis of this motion is that the defendant declares that the present sentence, as it now stands, is erroneous, and therefore, the court issue an order for the purpose of correcting the record.

According to reports, the defendant’s contention is that the previous conviction should not have been for the lesser crime of an attempt feloniously to possess a narcotic drug, but should have been for its felonious possession, the higher crime, the one to which he states that he had actually pleaded. In the minutes of a pleading disclose in 1952, the defendant, in the presence of his attorney, had pleaded guilty to the crime of the felonious possession of a narcotic drug and he was sentenced Elmira Reformatory. The item sheet attached to the indictment indicates by an entry thereon that the acceptance of the plea of an attempt feloniously to possess a narcotic drug was recommended by the district attorney. On the other hand, the official court record indicates, by an entry therein, that the plea had been taken to the lesser crime of an attempt feloniously to possess a narcotic drug.

Published on: September 17, 2012

Defendant Files Appeal With New York Appellate Court Seven Years After Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant pleaded guilty to charges of illegal possession of drugs. During the time of his plea, the court indicated that his sentence will not be 8 years to life imprisonment. The defendant also admitted that he was guilty of illegal possession of firearms and burglary in prior convictions.

At the time of the defendant’s guilty plea, the defendant gave 2 separate dates as to when the crimes occurred. However, upon further investigation, the supposed to be separately committed crimes happened during a single day. As part of the defendant’s guilty plea, he will also be treated as someone who has already been tried. His waived rights would also automatically brand him as a consecutive criminal offender.

Published on: September 10, 2012

Defendant Contends He Was Denied Effective Counsel, Files Appeal in New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 11, 1994, the defendant is accused of having burglarized a person and forcibly stolen their wallet, a checkbook, and a car. On October 12 and 13, 1994, he is charged with forging and cashing two of the stolen checks. After a jury trial, he was convicted of eight of the 17 offenses that he was originally charged with. He was sentenced to 5 ½ to 16 ½ years of prison. He filed an appeal. His contention was that his trial counsel denied him effective assistance.

The situation that he referred to occurred during pretrial hearings of his case. His public defender was given the witness list. He recognized one of the names on the list as a woman who had previously been represented by his office. He pulled her file and discovered confidential information relating to her substance abuse problem and treatment. He immediately notified the county court that he had a conflict in representing the defendant because he felt that effective counsel would use this information to impeach the witness. He felt that the information was relevant to the credibility of the witness and should be used in cross-examination of her on the stand. However, he was not allowed to use the information because it was attorney client privilege that he would not have if his office had not defended her. The defendant stated repeatedly that he wanted the court to allow that information to be heard. He continued to demand it even after the court had advised him that the information could not be used to impeach the witness under the Mental Hygiene Law § 23.05.

Published on: September 6, 2012

Defendant Requests Reduction in Sentence Based on Drug Reform Act

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant wanted his sentenced to be reduced according to the provisions indicated on newly amended Drug Reform Act. According to the defendant he will plead guilty to a drug crime of illegal possession of abused substances if the court will grant his request for reduced sentence.

The defendant supported his claim by declaring that the new amendments should cover all cases. This means that the new statutes should be recognized by the court as retroactive. The defendant committed his drug crime before the enactment date of the new provisions. The People opposed his request for coverage of the new sentencing guidelines. The court was tasked to determine if the defendant had legal basis for his request.

Published on: September 4, 2012

Defendant Contends Testimony Against Him Was From an Accomplice, Files Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him. An issue was raised on whether the testimony presented during the trial came from an accomplice.

According to the defendant’s motion, if the testimony was based on the statements of his accomplice, the testimony itself should not be admissible in court for lack of support. The defendant further stated in his motion that if the testimony of the accomplice is not corroborated or supported by the statement of another witness, the evidence against him is not enough to prove anything.

Published on: September 3, 2012

Court Decides Whether Bail is Appropriate for Non-Violent Drug Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

The court in this case was tasked to determine if the defendant should be allowed bail even if he was charged with a drug crime of illegal possession and sale of drugs. As for his sentence, the defendant was given an indeterminate sentence which means he could be sent to prison for year or for the rest of his life. The defendant claimed that he should be eligible for bail under the equal rights protection law.

Under the new provisions involving reduced sentencing of defendants with first class felonies or drug crimes, the defendant should be allowed bail because they are allowed to enjoy the right of equal protection of laws. The indeterminate sentence given by the court was based on the general sanctions provided by the law.

Published on: September 2, 2012

Supreme Court Decides Sex Offender Status Level Should be Reduced

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 2, 1975, at around 4 am, a 21-year-old man along with three other men burglarized a New Rochelle home. The home was that of a man who was said to be a drug dealer. The dealer lived in the home with his wife and three daughters who were ages two, five, and seven at the time. The children were sleeping when the men broke into the home. The two younger girls were sleeping with their mother. The armed intruders wore masks and demanded money.

When the purported drug dealer said that he had no money, the intruders said that they were going to kill the children. When the purported drug dealer stated that he had no money, the intruders said that they were going to kill the children if he didn’t tell them where the money was. He still contended that he had no money. The men decided at that point that they would kidnap the two-year-old girl and hold her for ransom. The men took the mother into the bathroom and held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her if she did not tell them where the money was. She stated that she did not have any money and the men bound and gagged her. They locked her into a closet and kidnapped the two-year-old. The woman managed to get free and discovered that her baby had been taken.

Published on: September 1, 2012

Defendant Denied Right to Cross Examine Witness and Appeals

by Stephen Bilkis

In January of 1996, a man offered a woman $1,500.00 to use her apartment for a drug deal. She accepted and the man and another man moved into the woman’s apartment to wait for a large amount of heroin to be delivered from San Francisco by another man. While in the apartment, the woman saw that one of the men, the defendant, had a small caliber handgun. When the man from San Francisco who was delivering the heroin arrived in New York, the woman and two men went to his hotel.

Several days later, the defendant and the woman returned to the hotel and searched it for the heroin. When they found it, they returned to the woman’s apartment where the other men were watching television. The woman stated that she was in the living room when the defendant and the other men went into the back bedroom. They came out about 15 minutes later without the man from San Francisco. She testified later that she went in to the back bedroom and discovered the San Francisco man lying on the bed face down with blood pouring from his head. The defendant and the other two men divided the heroin among them and then convinced the woman to help them wrap the body in a rug. They dumped the body along Riverside Drive in Upper Manhattan where it was quickly found and identified.

Published on: August 31, 2012

Defendants Move to Dismiss Indictments Based on Lack of Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

In May of 2001, the defendant allegedly assaulted a woman because she had helped police with a drug investigation that involved the defendant’s brother. The investigation was multicounty in the scope and revealed a distribution network that implicated the defendant’s brother. The Attorney General’s Organized Crime Task Force appointed a District Attorney from another county who was the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the task force as an Assistant District Attorney for this case. The defendant was charged with intimidating a witness in the second degree and assault in the third degree. The District Attorney from the other county presented the case to the Grand Jury and obtained the indictments.

The defendant moved to dismiss the indictments saying that the District Attorney from the other county was not a person authorized to present the case or to obtain indictments. The County Court dismissed the indictments in agreement with her. The State appealed the decision.