Published on:

The defendant, by his plea of guilty, forfeited the right to review of any non-jurisdictional defects in the matter

In this drug possession case, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and conspiracy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain tape recordings made pursuant to telephone wiretaps.

A Suffolk County Criminal lawyer said that the indictment of the 24 defendants in this case resulted from an investigation of a narcotics operation. The appellant defendant was indicted on four counts, including conspiracy and the sale and possession of cocaine. That branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress tape recordings obtained as a result of court-ordered wiretaps was denied, and he subsequently pleaded guilty to the instant charges. Prior to accepting the defendant’s plea, the court inquired as to whether he was withdrawing all motions “already ruled upon by the Court or now before this Court with respect to this proceeding”. The defendant, represented by counsel, withdrew all motions “heretofore made”.
According to a Suffolk County drug possession lawyer, on appeal, the defendant raises various issues concerning the denial of his motion to suppress. The Court declined to reach those issues as we find that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to review of the denial of his omnibus motion by withdrawing all motions prior to acceptance of his plea.

The imposition of consecutive sentences was permissible here because the offense of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree is not a material element of the offense of conspiracy.

In another criminal case, defendant appeals from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

A Suffolk County criminal attorney said that the defendant contends that his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was insufficient since he did not expressly admit the required intent, nor did he admit facts from which such intent could be inferred. The Court disagrees. The defendant, by his plea of guilty, forfeited the right to review of any non-jurisdictional defects in the matter. Here, the plea minutes indicate that the defendant acknowledged that he freely bargained for his disposition and, after consultation with his attorney, expressed his wish to plead guilty. By doing so, he availed himself of a lesser mandatory term of incarceration and avoided the risk of conviction on all counts after trial. He should not now be heard to complain about a disposition which he sought and which benefitted him.

In any event, the plea allocution was adequate. Although the defendant must acknowledge facts sufficient to establish the commission of the crime, the “court’s duty to inquire further is not triggered merely by the failure of a pleading defendant to recite every element of the crime pleaded to” Moreover, with respect to the instant crime, it has repeatedly been held that the element of intent may be inferred from all the circumstances. Where, as here, the defendant admitted possessing the gun, that the gun was loaded, and that its purpose was to protect the money and the cocaine, it can logically be inferred that he possessed the gun with the intent to use it unlawfully against another if necessary to protect his interest in a drug transaction. The court properly inquired of the defendant with respect to this issue and, having been satisfied with the defendant’s response, properly deemed the plea sufficient.

Furthermore, the Court has considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Accused-parties’ right due process should always be protected in every stage of the proceeding, as their guilt was not yet proven unless the Court so declares. Here in Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our Suffolk County Criminal lawyers make it a point that the rights of the accused are always observed throughout the proceedings of the case. Call our Suffolk County drug possession lawyers now for an advice regarding possession of illegal drugs and substances.

Contact Information