Gun Possession

Published on: March 25, 2014

NY Appellate Court Ruled There Was Insufficient Testimony of a History of Physical Violence

In this criminal case, the Plaintiff is the mother of and Administratrix of the Estate of her deceased son. In April 2006, the son, who was age 17 at the time, was in the backyard of the premises visiting with his friend. The owner of the premises was the defendant.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that at approximately 1:50 p.m., while the son and his friend were working on a car in the backyard, the son was fatally shot by a gunman who approached the two boys in the backyard. When the police arrived on the scene, the son, who was still conscious, told the police that he was shot by someone who came up and shot him from the adjoining yard. He was taken to a Hospital where he was operated on for his gun shot wound. However, at 8:26 a.m. the next morning, he died, never regaining consciousness. An individual, who was not the shooter, was arrested that day for possession of a weapon which was kept in the residence. Five months later, the police arrested another individual and charged him with the murder of the deceased.

Published on: February 17, 2014

Defendant Claims Facial Insufficiency for Child Endangerment Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with endangering the welfare of a child and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. She now moves the Court for an order dismissing the charge of endangering the welfare of a child for facial insufficiency.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that an accusatory instrument upon which the defendant may be held for trial “must allege facts of an evidentiary character’ demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged.” Further, valid criminal court information must contain non-hearsay factual allegations which, if true, “establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof.” CPL §100.40(1)(c).

Published on: September 20, 2013

Defendant was not observed engaging in any overt criminal activity

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was observed by Officers walking in front of a building on Lexington Avenue. The officers also observed through the glass doors of that building that two people were standing in the vestibule area and appeared to be having an argument. The second Officer entered the vestibule area. The other officer approached the defendant and asked him what he was doing. He did not give defendant an opportunity to answer but, rather, pressed a second question: whether defendant knew the two people in the hallway. Defendant denied knowing them. The officer then directed defendant into the hallway.

A New York Criminal Possession of a Lawyer said that, meanwhile, in the hallway, the second Officer was frisking one individual, who was facing the wall with his hands stretched upward against the wall. The second person observed in the hallway was in a corner of the vestibule watching the proceedings. When the first Officer came into the hallway, no weapons had yet been found in the possession of either the individual or the defendant. Ultimately, defendant was found to be in criminal possession of a weapon and an ammunition clip. As they passed the doorway, the officers looked through the glass door and saw two men, in the vestibule talking and waving their arms. The officers parked their car and continued to observe all three men. The two men in the hallway appeared to be having an argument, and one of the men, had an amount of currency in his hands. Defendant continued going back and forth between the apartment house door and the curb, and looking into the hallway. The actions of these three men appeared to the officers to match a pattern of so-called hallway robberies, with the man on the street as a lookout.

Published on: June 23, 2013

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Car Search

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant motioned to suppress a gun, the magazine in the gun, and nine rounds of ammunition in the magazine at a hearing before the court.

During the hearing the People called one witness, a police officer who was assigned to the Anti-Crime Unit of the 75th precinct at the relevant times.

Published on: June 22, 2013

People Appeal Defendant’s Successful Motion to Suppress Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The Supreme Court of Bronx County granted the defendant’s motion to suppress both physical evidence and statements. The People are appealing. There is an appeal from the same order that granted the People’s motion to reargue and on re-argument adhered to the original decision, dismissed the appeal from the prior order.

Case Background

Published on: June 21, 2013

Court Discusses Outcome of Mapp-Huntley Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant has been charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and disorderly conduct. A Mapp-Huntley hearing has been held in this case. The testimony that was offered during the hearing was quite different and the court does not find either testimony to be wholly credible. At the end of the hearing each party requested more time to submit post hearing memoranda of law and they both have.

Case Facts

Published on: June 18, 2013

Defendant Challenges Jury Instructions

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the County Court of Tompkins County. The judgment found the defendant guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Case Background

Published on: June 1, 2013

Petitioner Granted New Trial Based on Lack of Evidence for Drug Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner was arrested and charged with several serious crimes. Some of the charges included attempted criminal possession of drugs in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon and attempted robbery in the first degree.

The petitioner was held without bail and was indicted for all of these crimes. He entered a plea of guilty to criminal possession of drugs in the second degree, a class A felony, and to the weapons charge. The judge promised a sentence of nine years to life on the drug charge and five years as a definite term on the gun charge.

Published on: February 15, 2013

Defendant Appeals Criminal Conviction in NY Appellate Court Alleging Ineffective Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged in Queens County of kidnapping in the first, eight counts, and second degrees; rape in the first degree, two counts; sexual abuse in the first degree, two counts; and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Thereafter, the defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of kidnapping in the first degree, four counts; rape in the first degree, two counts; kidnapping in the second degree; sexual abuse in the first degree, two counts; and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On 15 August 1996, the defendant was sentenced. The defendant appealed the judgment of convictions. According to the defendant, the Court erred by refusing to charge the jury as to the defense of duress and his sentence was excessive. The Appellate Division, Second Department modified the judgment by vacating the conviction of one count of sexual abuse, finding that no evidence pertaining to that count was adduced at trial. Other than that, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The defendant then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. However, that application for leave was denied. The defendant then moved to vacate his judgment of conviction and argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, among other things, because his trial counsel failed to have the serological evidence tested for DNA after the defendant denied any involvement in the rape. On 18 June 2001, the defendant’s motion was denied, and his claims were found procedurally barred pursuant to CPL 440.10 based on the fact that the allegations were in the record, and could have been reviewed on defendant’s direct appeal. The defendant’s claims were found by the court bereft of merit. The defendant then sought leave to appeal the denial of his motion to vacate judgment, and sought a writ of error coram nobis. A sargued by the defendant, his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the claims he raised in his motion to vacate. The Appellate Division denied both applications, viz.: defendant’s application for leave to appeal and his application for a writ of error coram nobis.

The defendant, pro se, now moved for an order directing that forensic Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing be performed on specific evidence; for an order vacating the judgment of conviction; and to have the defendant produced at any hearing.

Published on: January 15, 2013

Defendant Appeals Weapon Possession Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 6, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, escape in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict of attempted murder in the first degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence seized from his person and a statement made by him to law enforcement officials. A source said that, the defendant contends that the People failed to establish his guilt of three separate counts of attempted murder in the first degree.

The issue in this case is whether defendant is guilty of the crimes charged.