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
A man filed an action to dismiss the charge of murder against him. He subsequently indicted in the State of Maryland, along with his colleague, on the allegation that he conspired with them to the murder of the victim. But, the man was acquitted of the conspiracy charge upon a jury verdict. The narrow issue presented by the motion is whether the conspiracy ruling and the murder statute are designed to prevent different kinds of harm.
The acts allegedly committed by the man which underlie both the Maryland and New York court are substantially the same. The evidence revealed that the man directed his colleague to go from Maryland to New York to kill the victim. It is alleged that the man’s colleague shot and killed the victim in New York.
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
The defendant is a confessed serial killer and was convicted by a jury for several offenses including one count of first degree murder for intentionally causing the death of three women in separate criminal transactions that were committed in a similar fashion.
The people filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty and because of this a separate sentencing proceeding followed the jury case. The jury in the sentencing court determined unanimously that the defendant should be executed. The defendant appealed to this court.
The petitioner, an inmate at Coxsackie Correctional Facility, has commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding to review a determination by respondent New York State Board of Parole denying his request for discretionary release. Respondent opposes the petition seeking its dismissal.
Currently, the petitioner is serving an indeterminate prison sentence of 15 years to life upon a plea of guilty to Murder in the second degree. The underlying offense that occurred in 1980 involved the petitioner, in concert with others, robbing a victim at knife-point and then stabbing the victim to death. The petitioner was approximately 20 years old at the time he committed the underlying offense.
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.
This is a petition by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, dated November 10, 1983, in which after a trial, and settled that branch of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
The Court ruled reversing the order, the portion of the omnibus motion which seeks to suppress the introduction of physical evidence is denied. The case was reverted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant stands indicted for two counts of sodomy in the third degree, three counts of sodomy in the third degree, and one count of sex abuse in the second degree. The sodomy counts are Class E felonies and the sex abuse count is a Class A misdemeanor. All counts are “statutory” in nature, in that lack of consent is based upon the fact of infancy, of the victim having been 16 years of age at the time of the incidents involving him, the other having been 14 years of age, and lastly, 13 years old.
An Albany Sex Crime Lawyer said that defendant has moved to dismiss the indictment upon the grounds of insufficient legal evidence before the grand jury to corroborate the testimony of the alleged victims as required by Section 130.16 of the Penal Law.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that this is a proceeding that transpired in January 2010 wherein the court presided over a jury trial conducted under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law to determine whether respondent currently has a mental abnormality as defined by MHL§10.03(i).
On 13 January 2010, the jury returned a verdict that respondent did not have a mental abnormality.
This is a case for judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR that was created by the petitioner, including his June 23, 2010 Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause, verified on June 23, 2010 and filed in St. Lawrence County Clerk’s office on July 9, 2010. Petitioner, who is a prisoner at the Riverview Correctional Facility, is stimulating the time calculation connected with his current imprisonment in DOCS custody.
A show cause order was issued by the Court on July 23, 2010 which was received by the respondent who immediately filed his answer with exhibits. The respondent was directed by the court to supplement his answer by including therein his entitlement to parole jail time in order to determine the correct computation of his penalty.
