The defendant was charged in this case for manslaughter which also means doing certain acts that led to the death of another person. The court also charged the defendant for drug possession. According to the accounts of police investigation, the defendant was guilty of heroin possession and selling of illegal substance. The victim died because the victim injected heroin into his body. The heroin and drug paraphernalia came from the defendant. The defendant knew that a large dose of heroin can be dangerous and fatal.
Published on:
Defendant Appeals Admissibility of Post Conviction Witness Testimony
When courts deal with witnesses and their testimony, sometimes-unexpected things happen. When they do, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what testimony can cause a reversal of the verdict and demand a new trial. The Supreme Court has the job of determining matters of law. They are not there to try the cases that are presented to them. They only rule on the matters of law contained within the cases that they get. Their job is to uphold a conviction of a trial court or to overturn it. They cannot find a defendant guilty or not guilty.
In the case at hand, in a pretrial hearing, the state made the defense aware that they intended to produce a witness at trial who through testimony would offer proof of some uncharged crimes that could be attributed to the defendant. The testimony disclosed that the witness to a homicide was working in a restaurant four years after the crime when the defendant came in.
Published on:
New York Appellate Court Discusses Conspiracy Law in Drug Case
A New York court heard a case on June 20, 2003 relating to the conspiracy to sell drugs in a housing project. The court dismissed the first count of the indictment charging a conspiracy in the first degree. The state moved to reargue the portion of the court’s June 20, 2003 decision. The state submitted a memorandum that detailed the 66 counts of sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school per the court’s direction.
The Supreme Court looked first at the background of this first count on the indictment. The grand jury was presented with a case to establish the existence of what is commonly known as a “wheel conspiracy” to sell drugs. The objective was to sell drugs in a public housing project in Brooklyn. While some of the members of the conspiracy were juveniles, none of the juveniles were responsible for any of the class A felonies that were charged. The juveniles were used as front line contacts. When an undercover police officer requested an amount of drugs that the juvenile could not produce, he was introduced to one of the codefendants, Warren. The transaction which was a felony but not class A was completed. Several months later the undercover officer arranged to meet with Mr. Warren and this time a class A felony drug transaction occurred. Following this initial transaction, the undercover officer transacted three additional class A felony drug purchases from Mr. Warren.
Published on:
Supreme Court Discusses Resentencing Guidelines in Drug Felony Cases
The Supreme Court is often faced with evaluating the requests of offenders who are attempting to reduce their sentences in prison. This is especially true as it relates to indeterminate sentences. Indeterminate sentences are those sentences that have no definite length or end date. The offender is given certain criteria that he or she must meet before being considered for parole. Until they meet the criteria, they stay in prison no matter how long it takes. Many of these offenders spend this time applying to the court to reevaluate their sentence and give them a determinate sentence instead.
The criteria for resentencing on a class A-II drug felony can be more restrictive than the criteria for resentencing under CPL §440.46(1). To be eligible for resentencing under this category, the offender must still have a minimum of three years left to serve on that sentence. The legislature apparently was attempting to prevent resentencing the inmate who was already on parole at the time that they make the request by applying this three-year limitation.
Published on:
Defendant Questions Legal Sufficiency of Evidence at Trial
The defendant was arrested after selling approximately two ounces of cocaine to a confidential police informant in the City of Cortland. He was indicted and found guilty after a jury trial of one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance. County Court sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of 14 years followed by five years of post-release supervision and directed him to pay restitution of $2,400 to the Cortland County Drug Task Force for the buy money used in the undercover operation.
Initially, the records show that the defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial is not preserved because he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal with sufficient particularity. Nevertheless, as defendant also argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it is necessary to evaluate whether the elements of the crimes charged were sufficiently proven at trial.
Published on:
Defendant Contends That Current Sentence for Felonious Drug Possession is Erroneous
In 1962, a defendant was sentenced by a New York City Judge as a second felony offender for a crime to which the defendant had not pleaded guilty. The basis of this motion is that the defendant declares that the present sentence, as it now stands, is erroneous, and therefore, the court issue an order for the purpose of correcting the record.
According to reports, the defendant’s contention is that the previous conviction should not have been for the lesser crime of an attempt feloniously to possess a narcotic drug, but should have been for its felonious possession, the higher crime, the one to which he states that he had actually pleaded. In the minutes of a pleading disclose in 1952, the defendant, in the presence of his attorney, had pleaded guilty to the crime of the felonious possession of a narcotic drug and he was sentenced Elmira Reformatory. The item sheet attached to the indictment indicates by an entry thereon that the acceptance of the plea of an attempt feloniously to possess a narcotic drug was recommended by the district attorney. On the other hand, the official court record indicates, by an entry therein, that the plea had been taken to the lesser crime of an attempt feloniously to possess a narcotic drug.
Published on:
Defendant Files Appeal With New York Appellate Court Seven Years After Conviction
The defendant pleaded guilty to charges of illegal possession of drugs. During the time of his plea, the court indicated that his sentence will not be 8 years to life imprisonment. The defendant also admitted that he was guilty of illegal possession of firearms and burglary in prior convictions.
At the time of the defendant’s guilty plea, the defendant gave 2 separate dates as to when the crimes occurred. However, upon further investigation, the supposed to be separately committed crimes happened during a single day. As part of the defendant’s guilty plea, he will also be treated as someone who has already been tried. His waived rights would also automatically brand him as a consecutive criminal offender.
Published on:
Defendant Contends He Was Denied Effective Counsel, Files Appeal in New York Appellate Court
On October 11, 1994, the defendant is accused of having burglarized a person and forcibly stolen their wallet, a checkbook, and a car. On October 12 and 13, 1994, he is charged with forging and cashing two of the stolen checks. After a jury trial, he was convicted of eight of the 17 offenses that he was originally charged with. He was sentenced to 5 ½ to 16 ½ years of prison. He filed an appeal. His contention was that his trial counsel denied him effective assistance.
The situation that he referred to occurred during pretrial hearings of his case. His public defender was given the witness list. He recognized one of the names on the list as a woman who had previously been represented by his office. He pulled her file and discovered confidential information relating to her substance abuse problem and treatment. He immediately notified the county court that he had a conflict in representing the defendant because he felt that effective counsel would use this information to impeach the witness. He felt that the information was relevant to the credibility of the witness and should be used in cross-examination of her on the stand. However, he was not allowed to use the information because it was attorney client privilege that he would not have if his office had not defended her. The defendant stated repeatedly that he wanted the court to allow that information to be heard. He continued to demand it even after the court had advised him that the information could not be used to impeach the witness under the Mental Hygiene Law § 23.05.
Published on:
Defendant Requests Reduction in Sentence Based on Drug Reform Act
The defendant wanted his sentenced to be reduced according to the provisions indicated on newly amended Drug Reform Act. According to the defendant he will plead guilty to a drug crime of illegal possession of abused substances if the court will grant his request for reduced sentence.
The defendant supported his claim by declaring that the new amendments should cover all cases. This means that the new statutes should be recognized by the court as retroactive. The defendant committed his drug crime before the enactment date of the new provisions. The People opposed his request for coverage of the new sentencing guidelines. The court was tasked to determine if the defendant had legal basis for his request.
Published on:
Defendant Contends Testimony Against Him Was From an Accomplice, Files Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Evidence
The defendant in this case filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him. An issue was raised on whether the testimony presented during the trial came from an accomplice.
According to the defendant’s motion, if the testimony was based on the statements of his accomplice, the testimony itself should not be admissible in court for lack of support. The defendant further stated in his motion that if the testimony of the accomplice is not corroborated or supported by the statement of another witness, the evidence against him is not enough to prove anything.