A New York Robbery Lawyer discusses the details of a court case that illustrates the difference between first and second degree robbery.
A, B, and T were brought before the court on charges of first degree robbery. B and T were found guilty of the charges while A was acquitted (found innocent). B and T submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeals for a review of the case.
A New York Man, Bennie H, found himself facing additional charges following his arrest for possession and sale of a controlled substance in 2004. It seems that he had been arrested in North Carolina previously for robbery. The previous conviction made his current charges considerably more serious because under New York law, the previous felony conviction increased the seriousness of his current charges. Mr. H’s potential jail sentence had been increased on both of his charges. Mr. H decided to fight the increased sentencing by requesting that the courts evaluate the use of the North Carolina robbery conviction.
Mr. H argued that since the laws were substantially different between New York and North Carolina that the conviction for robbery in North Carolina did not meet the elements of the crime in New York. If this was the case, then Mr. H did not have a previous felony charge and the increased seriousness of the current charges against him would be invalid.
What does kidnapping really mean? Is there a difference in the law’s treatment of a kidnapping and a kidnapping done as part of another crime? In this case, a New York Robbery Lawyer discusses how the law treats the two differently.
William G was charged with robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and kidnapping in the second degree. He was found innocent of all except the kidnapping charge. He appealed that the verdict was unfair and so the case was brought to a higher court. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the judgment. On what basis? Let’s review the facts.
A source tells of a case in Albany County where the judges came up with different decisions because of their differing perspectives on how double jeopardy applied to a situation.
David M was charged with 1st degree criminal robbery and put on trial. According to our expert, 1st degree robbery is robbery using a deadly weapon. During the trial, there was no evidence to prove that M was armed with the knife that he allegedly used. Therefore, he appealed to the Court to drop the charge. The Court did not. However, it said that it would open to the jury the possibility that M was guilty only of 2nd degree and 3rd degree robbery. These are lesser offenses with lighter sentences. The jury however still could not decide if M was guilty of these.
In some trials, there are more than one judge who comes up with the verdict. Have you ever wondered what would happen if not all the judges agreed on a decision? A source tells of one such case.
Frank A was charged with robbery and illegal possession of a weapon for two incidents. The first was the robbery of Mark J on December 27, 1981 in the City of Buffalo. The second was for the robbery of William . Both robberies happened at around the same time and in the same area.
Although a lot of people joke about lawyers being a hassle to work with, when push comes to shove, the right lawyer can mean the difference between guilty and not guilty. Your lawyer should speak for you and say what you want to say. But what happens when a lawyer and his client are not of the same mind? A source tells of such a criminal case.
On February 10, 2005, Jack W was convicted of two counts of 1st degree robbery. He appealed to have a retrial and to be given a different lawyer, on the basis that his lawyer, Joseph D, did not represent him properly. Washington said that he did not authorize his lawyer to admit in court that he was guilty of 2nd degree robbery.
Court cases are very interesting in that the verdicts that the courts come up with for similar situations can be very different. Our source tells of one case where a pair of men robbed someone but were given different sentences.
In September 2, 2004, Frank M was found guilty by the Trial Court of 2nd degree robbery. His alleged accomplice, S, was charged with 3rd degree robbery. M appealed to the Court of Appeals for a review of the sentence. He found it unfair that he would receive a heavier sentence than S when they were both charged with the same crime.
There is no better way to learn a lot with the legal proceedings of robbery cases but by going through cases that an expert has handled in the past. This goes the same for this robbery case of Walter J which happened last October 8, 1978. He was arrested by two police officers when the two received recent reports that there has been stolen automobile on the loose within the vicinity. When J went out of the car, he was holding a jacket whose pockets were filled with a lot of items that you would surely think have been just stolen.
According to the data taken by the observer, J was brought to the nearest precinct and was given the usual Miranda warnings to which he responded, “I understand.” With the rest of warning, he just consistently said that he decides not to say anything. According to the officer, the questioning lasted for about 30 minutes. When the second officer came around and administered the same questioning, the accused only responded with this statement: “I don’t want to talk to you.” The suspects were then transferred to another precinct, where the officers who brought them there testified that they are unsure already if the two were once again, questioned upon arrival.
It is common for a lot of robbery cases to be accompanied with a crime of murder. It is truly devastating to learn from a competent observer how numerous criminal cases such as this bombard the neighborhood of New York. A case that can serve as a good example for you to further understand how brutal robbery cases can turn out to be is the case of Jesus P. The victim, George G was on his way to his apartment building after seeing a movie, was approached by Jesus P with Robert F.
According to the details gathered by a study, the two suspects approached G to ask whether he lives in the building. But before he could even answer, he was already thrusted with a knife by P which was handed by F. Refusing to surrender, P did not stop pushing on the weight of the knife to further hurt the victim. When they found out that it was only a few dollars that they can get from G, they decided to let him go and leave with the money. But G was still stabbed the second time before he was totally let free.
Sometimes it works to be doubly cautious with the helpers we get to live with us in our own home. This is the case that transpired with Mr. and Mrs. Arnold W as the victims and Frank C and Denise G as the ones convicted of the murder and robbery. According to the lawyer who studied the case, it was in June 1980 that G started working as a maid for Anna W and her husband Arnold. She was recommended by a neighbor in the Manhattan building they were living in.
The Ws as per the description of the expert who also analyzed the case, are already in their late 80s. After two weeks from the very first day that she started working for the elderly couple, her fiancé by the name of C was observed to be parking near the building where the couple lives. During the day of the crime, it was discovered that G left the door open so that her partner can easily trespass the unit. C then entered the apartment unit and used a knife to threaten the Ws.
