Published on:

Court upholds robbery sentence

The defendant was charged by indictment with the crimes of robbery in the first and second degrees based on his participation in the holdup of a convenience store located in the city of Albany. Two of his accomplices pleaded guilty to the robbery and testified against the defendant.

A jury trial was held and the defendant was found guilty as charged and later sentenced as a predicate felony offender to an aggregate prison term of seventeen and a half years. The defendant is appealing the verdict and his subsequent sentence.

Case Discussion
The defendant claims that the statements that he made to the officer’s after he was arrested should have been suppressed because they were in violation of his indelible right to counsel. The defendant contends that the law circumvented that right by arresting him without a warrant when in fact; the police did have sufficient information to obtain a warrant before his arrest.

In this particular case, the defendant was not arrested in his home, but rather spotted on the streets of Albany and when he was approached by the police, who had information that he had been involved in a robbery, the defendant ran from them. The defendant was then arrested in a nearby building.

It is established that if a defendant is discovered out in the open, as the defendant was, the police are at liberty to refrain from securing an arrest warrant in order to question the defendant in the absence of counsel.

The defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction is found to be without merit as well.

In this case the People satisfied the proof and burden requirements on all of the elements and therefore established a prima facie case from which a rational jury could conclude that the defendant committed the crimes that he was charged with.

During the trial, two individuals testified that they acted as lookouts and saw the defendant and another individual enter the convenience store with a handgun, hit the attendant in the head with the gun and then take all the cash from the register. The four individuals split the money and went their separate ways.

Case Decision
The court has reviewed the case and has determined that the Supreme Court did not make an error when they rejected the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. The other arguments that are made by the defendant in regard to his case are also found to be without merit.

The verdict made in the original court is now affirmed and the charges and the sentencing of the defendant will stand.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free consultations to those that visit one of our New York City offices for the first time. Call us at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW (1-800-696-9529) to make an appointment with one of our experienced New York attorneys and discuss the legal issue that you may have. Call us today or come in to one of our conveniently located offices for help with legal problems.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information