New York Criminal Attorney Blog

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.

New York Defendant Challenges Denial of Motion to Suppress in Case Revolving Around Criminal Possession of Skimmer Device

October 4, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

A recent case Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument case before an appellate court in New York highlights the power that police officers have to search personal vehicles and seize suspicious items upon discovering evidence of criminal activity. In this case, in particular, the State of New York charged the defendant with unlawful possession of a skimmer device, which is a tool that helps people commit credit card fraud. The defendant was eventually found guilty by a jury, and he appealed, arguing that the officers did not have legal grounds to search his vehicle. After considering the defendant’s argument, the higher court denied the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when an officer pulled him over for not using his turn signal. The officer approached the car, and the defendant quickly admitted that he did not possess a driver’s license. The officer smelled marijuana while speaking with the defendant, and he told the defendant to exit the vehicle.

The officer then searched the car and found a skimmer device in the vehicle. The State charged the defendant with several crimes, including unlawful possession of a skimmer device and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence, which was denied by the trial court.

New York Defendant Successfully Lowers Sentence in DWI Case, Arguing Two-Year Sentence Imposed by Lower Court was Excessive

September 27, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a defendant in a New York DWI case filed an appeal of the lower court’s decision regarding his sentence for driving while intoxicated and criminal mischief. The lower court had sentenced the defendant to two years in prison, which the defendant argued was excessive. The higher court looked at the record of the case and determined that the sentence was, indeed, excessive. The court therefore granted the defendant’s appeal and re-sentenced him to six weeks’ incarceration.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with several crimes, including: driving while intoxicated (“DWI”), making an unsafe lane change, leaving the scene of an accident without reporting, and criminal possession of a controlled substance.

Under advice from counsel, the defendant entered into a plea deal with the State. As part of that deal, he promised that if he failed to complete a treatment program through drug court, he would face a sentence of up to two years in prison. The defendant then began his treatment program, but he soon tested positive for THC and later withdrew from the program.

New York Defendant Loses Appeal in Drug Case; Court Cites Lack of Standing to Suppress Evidence in its Opinion

September 20, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

Recently, a defendant in New York appealed his convictions for possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant was charged several years ago, and at trial he was found guilty as charged in January 2017. On appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court should have granted his motion to suppress incriminating evidence. Looking at the trial court’s record, however, the higher court decided to deny the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

The State of New York charged the defendant in this case when officers found illegal drugs in a jacket that he had recently discarded. By tracing the substances to the defendant, the investigators had enough information to formally charge him with criminal possession, and the defendant’s case later went to trial.

Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officers had no legal right to search the jacket where they found the drugs. The trial court denied this motion, and the jury therefore heard evidence of the drugs inside the clothing’s pocket. After receiving his guilty verdict and subsequent sentence, the defendant promptly filed an appeal.

New York Court Rules Defendants Entitled to New Trial After Issues During Jury Selection

September 13, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case before the Appellate Division, First Department in New York, the court decided another issue regarding jury selection in favor of two defendants who the Court said were entitled to a new trial after a possible error in jury selection prior to the the trial. The defendants were originally found guilty of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and gang assault in the first degree after a jury trial. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied their challenges to jury selection before trial. The higher court granted the defendants’ appeal, siding with the defendants and remanding their case back to the lower court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the two defendants in this case were charged several years ago after a violent robbery. The case went to trial, and before trial began, the court began the process of selecting a jury for the trial.
During jury selection, each side is allowed to object to several possible jurors that could end up deciding the case. In this jury selection in particular, the prosecution objected to five possible jurors — all of these possible jurors were nonwhite. When the defense challenged these objections, arguing they could have been based on the potential jury members’ race, the court dismissed the challenge and quickly moved on.
Ultimately, the jury found the defendants guilty, and the defendants appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendants argued that the court should have allowed them to fully challenge the prosecution’s objections during jury selection. According to case law under a case called Batson v. Kentucky, the court is required to allow defendants an opportunity to present a full challenge to the opposing party’s decision to object to a possible jury member. The Baston challenges come into play specifically when one side wants to object to the other side’s jury selection on the grounds of race, ethnicity, or sex.