New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: August 20, 2018

Defendant Tries to Reverse Guilty Plea

by Stephen Bilkis

The issue in this proceeding is whether a claim for innocence lies under CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate a judgment of conviction based on the defendant’s guilty plea. The court felt that the defendant’s pleas of innocence is not adequate grounds for relief.

The defendant is a nurse who was a caregiver for the victim. The victim is a disabled 10-year-old girl, who is blind, immobile and unable to speak. The defendant bathed the girl using a hand-held shower device. When she applied lotion to the girl’s legs after a shower, she noticed her skin was red and peeling.

The defendant called the girls parents who took her to the doctor. The doctor initially determined that that the victim had had an adverse reaction to medication. She was then referred to a hospital. At the second medical facility, it was determined that her condition was due to third-degree burns, which required skin grafts.

Published on: June 8, 2018

Defendant Appeals Sentencing for Drug Related Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. AA

June 5, 2018

This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New York County rendered on June 13, 2016. The defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to ten years. There are three judgments that took place subsequently in the same court with the same judge. The defendant was convicted of second-degree use of drug paraphernalia, fourth-degree conspiracy and third-degree sale of a controlled substance. As a result, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to two concurrent ten-year sentences.

Published on: May 7, 2018

Defendant Appeals Persistent Felon Sentencing Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Prindle

2017 New York Slip Op. 05267

June 29, 2017

Published on: May 4, 2018

Defendant Seeks to Appeal Guilty Plea Pending Deportation

by Stephen Bilkis

People v A

2018 NY Slip Op 03136

May 2, 2018

Published on: May 2, 2018

Sex Offender Appeals Resentencing for Child Sexual Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. G.

2018 NY Slip Op. 02803

April 25, 2018

Published on: April 23, 2018

Defendant Seeks to Shorten Probation Sentence

by Stephen Bilkis

People for the State of New York v. T.W.

NY Slip Op. 02210

When T was a minor, she and another man sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl. She plead guilty to 1^st Degree sexual abuse (a Class D Felony). The Supreme Court said that in the interest of justice, her conviction should be vacated, and she should be sentenced under Penal Law 60.02. She received 10 years probation. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence exceeded the maximum for an undesignated Class E Felony.

Published on: April 16, 2018

Appellant Addresses Denial of Omnibus Motion

by Stephen Bilkis

Decision

The is an appeal by the defendant of a decision that was entered in Dutchess County on 5/27/2015. The defendant was found guilty of 6 counts of a criminal sexual act in the 3d degree, 3d degree sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. This appeal addresses the denial of an omnibus motion to suppress his statements of law to the police.

The judgment is affirmed.

Published on: March 13, 2018

Appellant Challenges Level 2 Sex Offender Designation

by Stephen Bilkis

This case was an appeal from the Supreme Court, where the defendant was categorized as a Level Two sex offender.

The defendant had originally pleaded guilty for the use of a child in a sexual performance (violation of Penal Law 263.05). Before being released from prison the Supreme Court held a SORA hearing. After the hearing, the court gave the defendant 20 points for risk factor 13, which established him as a Level Two sex offender.

The defendant argues that the court was in error.

Published on: February 11, 2018

Appellant Challenges Level 1 Sex Offender Designation

by Stephen Bilkis

By order of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, which heard a case against the defendant who is a level 1 sex offender. The case was unanimously affirmed.

The question before the court was whether the defendant should be required to register as a level one sex offender due to his conviction, because of unlawful surveillance by the defendant. The defendant was accused of making cell phone videos under women’s dresses on the subway. The matter is appealable but the issue the defendant raises isn’t triable.

The defendant made his motion via Correction Law 168-a(2)(e) which states that a conviction of unlawful surveillance in the 2^nd (Penal Law 250.45(2), (3), or (4) is considered a sex offense. The caveat with this interpretation of the law is that it applies unless the application would be considered “unduly harsh.” The court argues that this motion can only be brought before the trial court prior to determining whether the defendant is a sex offender.

Published on: February 11, 2018

Defendant Files Appeal in NY Appellate Court Contending No Constructive Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on 11-20-14 against the defendant. The defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 3d degree and possession of drug paraphernalia in the 2^nd degree. Pursuant to PL section 220.50 [1]- [3], the defendant argues that there was no direct evidence of constructive possession and therefore he should never have been convicted. The trial court erred in failing to provide a circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury. This court agrees. The judgment against the defendant is reversed and a new trial is granted.

Police officers executed a search warrant at the residence of the defendant’s girlfriend. The girlfriend leased this apartment in her name. When the police searched the premises, they found baggies of cocaine throughout the apartment, as well as paraphernalia in the form of scales, sandwich baggies and dillutant. The defendant’s name was on mail left at the apartment, but otherwise, it didn’t appear that he lived there.

Both the girlfriend and the defendant were indicted for possession. The girlfriend plead guilty and stated that all of the items were hers. Despite this, the trial court proceeded against the defendant under the theory of constructive possession.