People v A
2018 NY Slip Op 03136
May 2, 2018
People v A
2018 NY Slip Op 03136
May 2, 2018
People v. G.
2018 NY Slip Op. 02803
April 25, 2018
People for the State of New York v. T.W.
NY Slip Op. 02210
When T was a minor, she and another man sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl. She plead guilty to 1st Degree sexual abuse (a Class D Felony). The Supreme Court said that in the interest of justice, her conviction should be vacated, and she should be sentenced under Penal Law 60.02. She received 10 years probation. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence exceeded the maximum for an undesignated Class E Felony.
The is an appeal by the defendant of a decision that was entered in Dutchess County on 5/27/2015. The defendant was found guilty of 6 counts of a criminal sexual act in the 3d degree, 3d degree sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. This appeal addresses the denial of an omnibus motion to suppress his statements of law to the police.
The judgment is affirmed.
This case was an appeal from the Supreme Court, where the defendant was categorized as a Level Two sex offender.
The defendant had originally pleaded guilty for the use of a child in a sexual performance (violation of Penal Law 263.05). Before being released from prison the Supreme Court held a SORA hearing. After the hearing, the court gave the defendant 20 points for risk factor 13, which established him as a Level Two sex offender.
The defendant argues that the court was in error.
By order of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, which heard a case against the defendant who is a level 1 sex offender. The case was unanimously affirmed.
The question before the court was whether the defendant should be required to register as a level one sex offender due to his conviction, because of unlawful surveillance by the defendant. The defendant was accused of making cell phone videos under women’s dresses on the subway. The matter is appealable but the issue the defendant raises isn’t triable.
The defendant made his motion via Correction Law 168-a(2)(e) which states that a conviction of unlawful surveillance in the 2nd (Penal Law 250.45(2), (3), or (4) is considered a sex offense. The caveat with this interpretation of the law is that it applies unless the application would be considered “unduly harsh.” The court argues that this motion can only be brought before the trial court prior to determining whether the defendant is a sex offender.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on 11-20-14 against the defendant. The defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 3d degree and possession of drug paraphernalia in the 2nd degree. Pursuant to PL section 220.50 - , the defendant argues that there was no direct evidence of constructive possession and therefore he should never have been convicted. The trial court erred in failing to provide a circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury. This court agrees. The judgment against the defendant is reversed and a new trial is granted.
Police officers executed a search warrant at the residence of the defendant’s girlfriend. The girlfriend leased this apartment in her name. When the police searched the premises, they found baggies of cocaine throughout the apartment, as well as paraphernalia in the form of scales, sandwich baggies and dillutant. The defendant’s name was on mail left at the apartment, but otherwise, it didn’t appear that he lived there.
Both the girlfriend and the defendant were indicted for possession. The girlfriend plead guilty and stated that all of the items were hers. Despite this, the trial court proceeded against the defendant under the theory of constructive possession.
The question before the court is whether the people have established through clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was a stranger to the victim at the time of the rape. The answer will determine whether he is a Level 2 sex offender based on the facts, the court says yes.
On February 21, 2017 the defendant plead guilty to rape in the 3d degree pursuant to Penal Law 130.25(3). He was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain to incarceration for 1 ½ years in state prison followed by 6 years of probation. He was released on June 20, 2017. The Board of Examiners for Sex Offenders recommend the court adjudicate defendant a level 2 sex offender based on various risk factors. One risk factor is challenged, risk factor number 7, which is the relationship of the defendant and the rape victim. The defendant introduced evidence that he and the victim were acquainted. The court says he is wrong.
The court agrees with the police report that the defendant was a stranger to the victim, who was 13 years old at the time and the defendant was 25. The victim and her classmate ditched school and took a subway to the Bronx. Her classmate met a male friend there, and the 3 “hung out” for awhile. The victim was the left alone in the defendant’s apartment and was raped during this time.
DWI in NY: Driving While Intoxicated – VTL 1192.3 Driving While Intoxicated is a dangerous habit among the drivers in the country. It is said that it is not just dangerous; the law likewise punished the drivers who are found to be intoxicated while driving. Driving While Intoxicated is just a part of crimes which are punishable while driving, the law also provides for the following crimes which can be violated while driving – DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) – but regardless of the particular offense in New York (both NYC and Westchester), prosecutors and judges take these charges very seriously.
A New York DWI Lawyer said that we have handled numerous DWIs, DWAIs and DUIs here in our firm, whether they are charged as VTL 1192.1, VTL 1192.2, VTL 1192.2-a or VTL 1192.3. A particular question which a layman frequently asked us is “how can I be charged with DWI if there is no breathalyzer or intoxilizer that indicates how much alcohol I had in my system?” In answering their question, we first ask for the circumstances surrounding their problem. Once we already determined the main problem, we give them an advice which will benefit them. In the question stated above, the answer is quite simple. As we call it in the criminal law field, a person can be held liable for DWI even without a chemical test. This can be done by using the observation of the arresting officer based on the appearance of the driver and if indeed the latter was intoxicated. This is also known as the “Common Law” DWI.
An offender, indicted for the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree (three counts), petit larceny (one count), criminal tampering in the second degree (five counts), and theft of services (five counts), brings this omnibus motion to (1) inspect the grand jury minutes and dismiss the indictment due to insufficient evidence before the grand jury; (2) to dismiss specific counts in the indictment because they are duplications of and inconsistent with other counts and (3) to dismiss the theft of services counts on the ground that the presumption created by section 165.15 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional.
The counts charged in the indictment arise out of the theft of approximately 3,391,000 cubic feet of gas from a Union Gas Company. The theft of gas was accomplished through bypasses, pieces of pipe attached to the gas company’s lines, which allow one who is not a gas customer to obtain gas by tapping gas company lines and receiving free service.