The court is presented with two case appeals in which one defendant is seeking to post bail. The other appeal concerns the dismissal of a writ of habeas corpus. The court has decided that the appeal requesting for the defendant to be allowed to post bail should be appealed in the first place. The denial of bail is not considered an appealable order under the court of law. Therefore, the first appeal is dismissed.
The defendant was convicted of drug crimes for the possession and sale of illegal substances. These two convictions against the defendant are subject for appeal. In relation to the charges, the judge has provided the defendant with a certificate of reasonable doubt. Despite the document, the judge denied the defendant to post bail because of his previous cases where he was convicted of drug crimes. According to the law, a drug defendant cannot be allowed to post bail before or after his indictment. Bail is denied because the defendant has two convictions for drug-related crimes.
The defendant contested the convictions and wanted the court to treat the separate charges as a single matter. According to the defendant, if the previous convictions are to be considered as one, his case will not be limited by the denial of bail. He should be allowed to post bail for his “single” offense and not two as treated by the courts. This is the basis of the defendant’s appeal for bail.
To prove that there were indeed two convictions, the court has to find the records for his past offenses. In connection with the denial of bail, bail will only be allowed to a defendant who has a longer hiatus or time gap between the current case and the past convictions. In order to be allowed bail, the convictions of the defendant will have to be at least more than a year. In the defendant’s case, the convictions have a time difference of less than the stated provision. Due to the short hiatus of the criminal offense, the defendant’s case is covered by the provisions of the law referring to ineligibility of bail.
According to the lawyers of the defendant, both of these cases came from a single drug sale and the cases should not be treated as consecutive drug crimes. The court’s basis for its charges came from charging separate crimes of illegal possession of drugs and paraphernalia and the other being the criminal sale of drugs.
Based on court interpretation of the law, when an individual is convicted of two or more criminal offenses that led to committing different drug crimes, the court is allowed to impose a separate sentence for each crime. Further examination of current statutes has revealed that a conviction of two or more offenses should be treated as only one conviction only by the court.
However, further reading of the legislature has found no provision of two convictions based on one source of information. The defendant’s lawyers have implied that the conviction could have been based on one single transaction made by the defendant. The legislature also had not indicated if such convictions should be treated by the courts as one and the same.
It should be noted that the current law was amended extensively. The defendant’s lawyers may have only looked at one interpretation of the provisions instead of looking at all the parts to make their case.
The court has decided to uphold the order of denial of bail. The defendant in this case is therefore not allowed to post bail because of his past convictions. The writ of habeas corpus is also affirmed subject to the statutes provided by law.
If you know someone who is involved in a drug crime and requires the services of an expert New York Criminal Lawyer, consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates for immediate action. The legal services of a New York Drug Crime Attorney can help you prepare for any trial.
A New York Drug Crime Attorney is always ready to help your case. If you are in need of a New York Criminal Lawyer, Stephen Bilkis & Associates have offices located in the metropolitan area to accommodate you and your legal needs.