The is a case where defendant filed a motion for leave of court to present additional arguments on appeal for a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on December 20, 2001. Said judgment, subject matter of this petition, was rendered by decision and order of the court on February 23, 2004.
The Court has ruled to recall and vacate the order and decision issued by the Supreme Court and substituted the same based on the memorandum and papers filed in support of the motion and other documents filed in relation thereto.
The defendant filed an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on December 20, 2001 wherein the defendant was convicted of the crime of rape in the first degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and sentenced him to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 15 years for each of count of rape committed by the defendant, 15 years of sodomy in the first degree, and two years imprisonment for each of the sexual abuse counts. The Court also issued an order of protection which remained to be in effect until December 20, 2001.
The Supreme Court issued an order to modify the judgment, on the law, by deleting the provision in the order of protection which provided that it shall remain to be in effect until December 20, 2021. The other parts of the judgment were affirmed by the Court and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a fresh determination of the expiration date of the order of protection in accordance therewith.
The Court likewise ruled that the evidence presented was most favourable to the prosecution and was found by the court to be legally sufficient to establish the element of forcible compulsion beyond reasonable doubt on the part of the accused. Also, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight accorded to the evidence presented, is primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact or the court which saw and heard the witnesses presented by the parties. The resolution or determination of the trier of fact must be accorded with great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless said evidence are clearly unsupported or presented without any basis on record.
The Court likewise ruled that the inconsistency in the testimony of the complainant and the possibility of any improper motive merely focuses the issue on the credibility of the trier of fact to appreciate the evidence presented before it.
* * *
This is an appeal made by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court convicting said defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and rape in the second degree. The defendant entered a plea of guilty and interposed his appeal also on an amendment judgment of the same court which revoked a sentence of probation after having found out that the defendant had violated a condition thereof by his own admission and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree.
The Court ruled to remit the matter to the Supreme Court to hear and report on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
The defendant averred that the Supreme Court committed an error when it sentenced him as a violent predicate felon. But, the defendant has waived his claim by failing to contest or controvert his status as a violent felon when he had the opportunity to do so. The defendant likewise argued that he moved to withdraw his plea of guilty since he was coerced by his counsel into taking the plea. The record of the case revealed that the defense counsel took a position adverse to the defendant and, essentially, he became a witness against the latter.
Therefore, the court ruled to remit the matter to the Supreme Court to hear and report on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.
The law office of Stephen Bilkins and Associates has been in the forefront of litigating sexual offenses cases. Their criminal lawyers have been proven to give the best legal service in the county. Their law office is open for consultation on the usual office hours.