New York Criminal Attorney Blog

New York Defendant Challenges Denial of Motion to Suppress in Recent Drug Case

December 9, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York Gun case before the Appellate Division, Second Department in New York, the defendant unsuccessfully asked for the court to reverse a trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant originally faced charges for criminal possession of a weapon, unlawful possession of marijuana, and violations of two vehicle and traffic laws. He pled not guilty, and his case went to trial. After the jury found the defendant guilty as charged, he appealed the lower court’s decision not to suppress the marijuana that the police officers had found in his vehicle. Ultimately, the higher court agreed with the denial, affirming the lower court’s verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was driving one evening when he threw a cigarette out the window of his car. A patrol car behind him immediately began following him, eventually pulling him over for a traffic stop.

A police officer approached the defendant and smelled marijuana on his person. He also noticed that there was a clear bag of marijuana in the front passenger seat. He asked the defendant to exit the vehicle; while the defendant exited, the officer searched the trunk of the car and found two unloaded firearms in a shoe box.

New York Defendant in Second Degree Murder Case Gets New Trial Based on Improper Questioning by Police Officers

December 2, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In an October 2023 Murder case before the Appellate Division, First Department, the defendant argued that several of his incriminating statements to police officers should have been suppressed by the lower court. The defendant was originally convicted of murder in the second degree, and the lower court sentenced him to a term of 25 years to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant took issue with the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements. The higher court weighed the evidence and ended up agreeing with the defendant, remanding the case for an entirely new trial.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers responded to a 911 call on the evening in question at the defendant’s home. The defendant himself made the call, reporting that an unknown person had invaded their home and killed his wife. Both the defendant and his wife were taken to the hospital, then, after the defendant’s wife died, the defendant was brought into the station for questioning.

Officers gave the defendant Miranda warnings and proceeded to ask him questions about the incident. At first, the defendant stuck with his story, that an unknown intruder had stabbed his wife. Then, however, the officers told the defendant that he was not being arrested and that the statements would “not necessarily” be used against him. At that point, the defendant admitted to being the one to kill his wife.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Lower Court’s Decision, Highlighting Importance of Contextualizing Evidence Rules in Sexual Assault Cases

November 25, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a court in New York, the defendant asked the court to find that the lower court had erroneously excluded evidence during his trial. The defendant was originally charged with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, and a jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal, however, the higher court agreed with the defendant’s argument and ultimately reversed the lower court’s decision.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was sitting on a couch with a minor relative of his when he allegedly penetrated the minor’s vagina and touched her breasts. The minor’s testimony indicated that the two individuals had blankets over their laps, and that the defendant reached under the blanket and proceeded to touch her inappropriately.

The minor immediately texted her mother to tell her what had happened. At that point, the defendant was charged with first-degree sexual abuse. He pled not guilty, and his case went to trial. A jury found him guilty, and the court sentenced the defendant to three years in prison.

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Argues for Suppression of Incriminating Evidence, Highlighting the Importance of Establishing Standing in Suppression Cases

November 18, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, in a New York criminal case involving possession of a forged instrument, the defendant argued that the lower court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence found in the car he was driving. An officer first pulled the defendant over for speeding, and the officer found a credit card reader in the passenger seat of the car. The defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court denied, and the defendant appealed. Despite the defendant’s reasoning, however, the higher court ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer noticed the defendant driving by because he was speeding and because he ran through a red light. The officer conducted a traffic stop and ended up finding a credit card reader along with several debit cards and several blank cards in the car’s passenger seat. The State charged the defendant with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing the police officer did not have the legal authority to seize the credit card reader when conducting the traffic stop. The lower court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant promptly appealed that decision.

New York Defendant Successfully Argues for Guilty Plea to be Vacated in Weapons Case, Highlighting Importance of Reasonable Suspicion in Police Stops

November 12, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a New York court, the defendant appealed the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress tangible evidence. The defendant originally pled guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, but he argued on appeal that the officers arresting him did not actually have the legal right to stop him before arresting him. On appeal, the higher court agreed, reversing the lower court’s decision on the motion to suppress and vacating his guilty plea.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers patrolling one evening received an anonymous 911 call that a Black male with an orange sweatshirt was in the area and had a gun. Officers began to look for the individual, and they eventually came across a Black male with an orange sweatshirt. The officers exited their car and ordered the individual to show his hands. The individual ran, taking his jacket off and throwing it on the ground as he sped away.
Officers eventually caught the suspect, and they found a handgun in the jacket he discarded. He was then arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon.

The Decision

The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of the gun, which the lower court denied. The defendant appealed, arguing that the officers did not have legal grounds to stop and arrest him. Officers must, argued the defendant, have “reasonable suspicion” that a suspect is participating in criminal activity in order to chase and legally stop that individual. Here, the officers did not know anything about the defendant and therefore had no reasonable suspicion that he had a gun.

New York Defendant in Weapons Case Unsuccessfully Appeals Denial of Motion to Suppress

November 6, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In an October 2023 case before a New York court, the defendant appealed the lower of the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress incriminating evidence. The defendant was originally charged with criminal possession of a weapon based on a 2015 run-in with police officers. After being criminally charged with a felony, the defendant asked the court to suppress the incriminating evidence, a gun, that officers found in his personal vehicle during a routine inventory search. The court denied the defendant’s motion, who then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The higher court, considering the defendant’s appeal, ultimately ruled that the officers’ search was constitutional. The court therefore affirmed the original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers were on patrol one evening when they noticed the defendant driving by in his truck. The officers saw the defendant commit multiple traffic violations, and they therefore conducted a routine traffic stop. The officers subsequently discovered a “gravity knife” in the defendant’s pocket, which was illegal for the defendant to possess at the time. The law has since changed. The officers brought the defendant in for processing. They then conducted an “inventory search” of the defendant’s truck, and they found a gun in the car’s trunk. At that point, facing criminal charges for possession of a weapon, the defendant filed a motion to suppress.

The Decision

The court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and he promptly filed an appeal. On appeal, the defendant argued that the police officers’ search protocol was unconstitutional. The officers found the firearm because, after they brought the defendant in for questioning, they conducted a standard inventory search of the vehicle. According to the defendant, the officers had too much leeway to conduct the inventory search without his consent – it was not fair that they were able to sift through his car’s contents while he was in custody.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Sentence in Assault Case Based on Age at His Time of the Crime

October 30, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent matter before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, the court modified a defendant’s judgment in his favor, vacating part of his sentence for an assault conviction from 2013. The defendant asked the court to reconsider part of his sentence given his young age at the time of the conviction. The State conceded that the sentence should be altered, and the Court ultimately granted the defendant’s request.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant pled guilty to one count of assault in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree in 2013. Months later, the defendant appealed, arguing that his plea should be vacated because the court did not take into account that he might have been eligible for youthful offender treatment, which typically means that a defendant is sentenced to less time in prison because of his or her young age at the time of his or her conviction and which would mean that he doesn’t have a criminal record.

The court denied the defendant’s appeal, and the defendant challenged this decision. The higher court decided it was willing to at least hear the defendant’s argument regarding his position that the lower court should resentence him given his age at the time of the conviction.

Understanding the Spectrum of Felonies in New York: A Comprehensive Guide

October 23, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Introduction:

In the intricate landscape of New York criminal defense, felonies, as opposed to misdemeanors, stand out as serious offenses, and New York classifies them into distinct categories based on their severity. From Class A to Class E felonies, each level represents a different degree of criminal activity, carrying varying degrees of punishment. In this guide, we’ll delve into the different classes of felonies in New York, shedding light on their definitions and the potential consequences they entail.

Class A Felony:

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Robbery Conviction, As Court Rules that State Successfully Established His Identity at Trial

October 17, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York criminal case before the Appellate Division, Third Department, a New York defendant appealed his convictions of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree. In his appeal, the defendant argued that the State failed to establish his identity as the person who committed the offense. The higher court, reviewing the trial court’s record, eventually disagreed with the defendant and affirmed his conviction and sentence. The case serves as an important illustration of the difficulties that defendants face when attempting to run a misidentification defense.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the proprietor of a local convenience store closed up shop around 2:30 a.m. one evening. As he was locking the store, two assailants grabbed him, held a knife to his body, and told him to take them into the convenience store. Once there, they ordered him to give them money from the cash register. The assailants both fled with several hundred dollars.

After several weeks of investigating the crime, officers arrested the defendant in this case as one of the two assailants. He was charged with several crimes, two of which were robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree. His case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty as charged. The defendant promptly appealed the guilty verdict.

New York Defendant in Reckless Assault Case Challenges Lower Court’s Denial of Motion to Suppress

October 11, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent assault case in New York before the Appellate Division, Second Department, the defendant asked the court to reconsider a lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant was charged with and convicted of reckless assault of a child and endangering the welfare of a child. On appeal, he argued that because no one informed him of his Miranda rights, the statement he made to a police officer was inadmissible in court. Reviewing the record, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal, affirming his conviction as well as the resulting sentence.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant first interacted with police officers in this case when his four-week-old baby was being treated for serious injuries in the hospital. Officers asked the defendant how his baby got the injuries, and they later discovered that the defendant had been shaking the baby, which ultimately caused the injuries.

The State charged the defendant, and he filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to officers in the hospital. According to the defendant, he revealed incriminating information during this conversation, and the statements were inadmissible because no one ever read him his Miranda rights, which are required under the law. The lower court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant promptly appealed.