New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: May 29, 2012

What Happens When The Accused Admits His Gun Possession During a Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

It is not known by many that you can learn a lot from studying robbery case reports that were gathered and analyzed by a reporter. With this particular report, the defendant involved is John Gr. The robbery happened late afternoon of May 22, 2008 as he entered the Staten Island Bank and approached a teller and gave her a note with instructions. The teller just complied to the instructions written which said: “I have a gun, fill the bag. Don’t say anything or I’ll shoot.” When he left the bank, the teller immediately locked it and informed the police.

What was good about this scene is that according to a source, there was a video surveillance which helped in identifying better the suspect. When the investigation was pursued, the teller was able to identify the defendant when placed in a lineup. In this case, John G is fighting for his right to lessen the degree of robbery since according to him, he was not carrying any gun even if his note said so. The court said that even if it was not proven that he was truly armed with a life threatening instrument or tool, he was still capable at that moment of causing harm or even death to others.

Published on: May 28, 2012

Can You Be Charged With Robbery When There is No Visible Weapon? New York Courts Decide

by Stephen Bilkis

With every robbery case, it is an important issue to clear whether the ones accused carried a certain kind of firearm during the actual crime. To learn more about it, a competent lawyer discusses the cases of Freddie and Hector M who were both being proven to have carried such deadly firearms before their convictions could be elevated. The proofs presented were sufficient but they both posed their appeals.

With the details gathered by a cop, the robbery case of Freddie L took place in Manhattan in October 1984. They declared a stick up to two female friends and the victim walking the street. The victim testified that when the stick up was announced, Freddie gestured in a way as if he had a gun since he put his hand inside his vest. When he gave Freddie the item he was asking from him, he immediately ran from the scene with his other companion. The victim also testified that he knew Freddie since they were able to play basketball once years ago. Hence, it was easy for the victim to identify him.

Published on: May 26, 2012

Can You Be Charged With Robbery When Weapon Isn’t Used? New York Courts Decide

by Stephen Bilkis

John G entered a bank, walked up to a teller station, and handed her a handwritten note that said, “I have a gun, Fill the bag. Don’t say anything or I’ll shoot”. The teller filled the bag with money she had at her station, and John took it and walked out.

Published on: May 25, 2012

New York Court of Appeals Decides Whether Concurrent Sentences Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 11, 1988, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Nigel G and Terence O were working at a game booth at Coney Island amusement park. Suddenly, two individuals identified by G as Rodolfo G and an accomplice, Lonnie Jones, approached him. G also testified that G stuck a hard object in his back and Lonnie J demanded money and jewelry from him. G did not comply. Terence O moved to the back of the booth, whereupon Lonnie J punched G in the face. Next, G turned toward Lonnie J and G shot G in the back. Both perpetrators then fled without making additional efforts to steal property.

Rodolfo G was convicted after a jury trial of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Came October 30, 1989, Rodolfo G was sentenced a second violent felony offender to ten to twenty years imprisonment for the attempted murder and five to ten years for the attempted robbery, to run consecutively to each other. G was sentenced to five to ten years on the weapons possession count to run concurrently with the other sentences.

Published on: May 24, 2012

Defendant Appeals Robbery Charge, New York Appellate Court Decides

by Stephen Bilkis

It is truly disturbing for ordinary people the crimes that are happening in our society today. You can never be sure anymore that you are safe inside your own home let alone out in the streets. Take a look at this particular case in which an innocent woman suffered indignity and humiliation on a regular night out with friends.

A woman, with her two friends were having a nice time at the Unger’s Bar. This was around midnight on September 10, 1983. The woman felt a bit hungry and went out to get something to eat at the restaurant next door. After ordering two hotdogs, she went outside to sit at the passenger’s side of her friend’s car because she didn’t want to eat alone inside the restaurant. According to a Lawyer, shortly after the woman began to eat a man, the defendant, suddenly went inside the car and sat on the driver’s side of the vehicle. He was already agitated and he spoke with so much anger at her that she did not understand while holding a knife at her throat. It all happened so fast that the woman could not understand what had happened.

Published on: May 23, 2012

New York Appellate Court Revokes Parental Rights in Light of Domestic Violence and Alcohol Related Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 5, 2011, The Department of Social Services, Otsego Counter, in Cooperstown, New York completed the decision that found a boy to be permanently neglected. The decision was not made lightly. The child was removed from his mother’s care in 2007 when his situation was brought to the attention of the Department of Family and Children Services. The child’s mother battled with several alcohol-related problems.

The Department of child protective services offered numerous services to this mother. They offered guidance and assistance to address chemical dependency, mental health referrals, parental education, and many other services offered in an attempt to provide and encourage an improved parent-child relationship. The caseworkers attempted to get the mother to make regular contact with the child. They advised her of the problem areas that she needed to work on so that she could get her child out of foster care and back into her own care.

Published on: May 22, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discussed Juvenile Murder Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a very sad case about a juvenile offender in which a life had been threatened and killed. This case only goes to show the social problems that we are now facing with our children. This case is a call not only to parents but to all who are responsible in rearing the children of today.

Ricardo S, 15 years old at the time the crime was committed, was at the school yard of Fort Hamilton High School in Brooklyn, according to a witness. It was October 21, 1980 and it was clear day. Ricardo was seen approaching the victim. According to facts , Ricardo had a handgun and threatened the victim to hand over his gold chain which he wore around his neck. When the victim apparently refused to give his gold chain, Ricardo then shot the victim and then took the gold chain from the victim’s neck.

Published on: May 21, 2012

New York Court Discusses the Use of the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act

by Stephen Bilkis

There are many sex crimes these days that are discovered by a New York sex crime lawyer to have been caused by mental health or abnormality. Aside from SORA there is also the SOMTA or what is called as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act which deals with sex crimes that involve the Mental Hygiene Law. In this particular case, the one accused is Harold Nelson convicted of promoting prostitution, kidnapping and also bail jumping. He was given the charge of 9 to 18 years for kidnapping, 4 to 8 years for the kidnapping, and 3 to 6 years for the bail jumping.

According to a lawyer, Nelson forced his victim and raped her over and over again. He even forced her to be a prostitute and even physically beat her including the involvement of drugs. He was a detained sex offender who was found out to have been suffering from some kind of mental abnormality. According to a New York law describes SOMTA as crimes that are sexually motivated.

Published on: May 20, 2012

Is New York’s Sex Offender’s Registration Act Unconstitutional? Court Weighs In

by Stephen Bilkis

In a lot of sex crimes these days, an expert lawyer says that there are many accused who suffer from a certain kind of mental abnormalities. Such case lets the court decide that such accused undergo certain treatment like the SORA. But in this case, the alleged named as Elias M. However, in this case he keeps on appealing that such program is unconstitutional and that he would fight for his right.

According to the lawyer who became a part of the case, the court did not agree that the decision for the SORA is unconstitutional. It even scored him as a sex offender who is of high risk and falls as level 3 offender. But the defendant still continue to disagree and never stopped submitting written submissions to serve as additional support to what he is trying to prove. Another lawyer also believes that there is no valid reason at all to have his level 3 designation to be lowered for he was certainly considered as a high risk offender which means he is of great harm to the society.

Published on: May 19, 2012

Does a Person Have to be Physically Present to be Charged with Robbery? New York Courts Discuss

by Stephen Bilkis

There are always questions on who are involved in a particular and who are not. Up to what extent can be a person’s participation for him to be considered as part of a crime? This particular case is all about these doubts and questions about a person’s participation in committing a crime.

According to a source, John T was charged and indicted with second degree. But this was contested by T because the nature of his involvement in the said crime. He was sentenced to three to nine years of imprisonment.