Press Release - Joseph Williams Indictment

FROM:   HOLLEY CARNRIGHT

        ULSTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DATE:   March 31, 2015

SUBJECT: PRESS RELEASE-JOSEPH WILLIAMS INDICTMENT

Joseph Williams, age 25, of Marlboro, New York, was indicted by an Ulster County Grand Jury in connection with the killing of a dog on November 19, 2014, at 4 West Street in Marlboro. Williams was charged with aggravated cruelty to animals, a felony. Williams was additionally charged with the misdemeanor of torturing, injuring animals or failure to provide sustenance, from an unrelated incident.

Driveway Repair Scams

DRIVEWAY REPAIR SCAMS

Spring is here and the Ulster County District Attorney’s Division of Consumer Affairs advises consumers to be alert for driveway repair scammers. The office cautions homeowners to be wary of businesses who solicit door-to-door; be wary of pressure to have the work done immediately; get a written estimate/contract beforehand and make certain the paperwork has the name, address and telephone number of the business; compare estimates; and always note license plate numbers and vehicle descriptions. Consumer Affairs can be reached at 340-3260.

 

PRESS CONFERENCE - JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT

TO: Senator William Larkin; Senator John Bonacic; Senator George

    Amedore; Senator James Seward; Assemblyman Peter Lopez;

    Assemblyman Kevin Cahill; Assemblyman Frank Skartados;

    Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney

FROM: HOLLEY CARNRIGHT, ULSTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DATE: MARCH 19, 2015

RE: JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT

 

Greetings:

I am writing regarding the Juvenile Justice Act Bill, which is included in the 2016 budget proposal.  Please understand that I speak with you only as the Ulster County District Attorney, not on behalf of DAANYS.

I feel there is not enough transparency to this Bill.  With very few exceptions, virtually no one I have spoken with understands the details of this seismic change in our Criminal Justice System.  My suggestion would be that the Bill is tabled.  If a compromise is necessary, the money for the Bill could easily be put in the budget, provisionally, for a Bill that will follow which raises the age of criminal responsibility.  Then, over the course of the next few months, all of the stake holders can review and present a cogent, workable Bill that increases services to many younger offenders while still protecting the rights of the community, and specifically of victims. 

At the Bill’s core is the assumption that many youths have not set their moral compass by age 17.  Therefore, it is unjust to treat them as adult criminals.  They should not be housed with adult criminals.  Moreover, if we provide better, earlier, services to some in this population it will decrease recidivism.

The conflict I have with the current proposal is that the Bill far exceeds the above stated goals and, rather than making us safer, it presents a clear and present danger to those people who are our most vulnerable, ie, child victims, domestic violence victims, victims of sexual crimes and addicted persons.

There is a lot to like in this Bill.  I am convinced that a revamping of the current Family Court PINS system (long overdue) and influx of money to improve services can reduce recidivism within a certain segment of the younger, first offender population.  I actually like the idea of a specialized youth court for some types of cases.  In addition, I agree that housing youths with adult criminals should be addressed.

My view as the Ulster County District Attorney is pretty straight forward.  We are morally and ethically obligated to improve the protection of the people we represent.  Wherever this Bill does that, I am on board. However, I am opposed to those provisions which threaten to downgrade the strides we have made in protecting the public.  I do not intend the following list to be dispositive regarding the entire Bill but here are a couple of provisions which I oppose since I feel that they a) do not promote the basic premise of the Bill and b) will inhibit me from protecting the public.

A.  Restrictions regarding questioning.  I oppose the provisions in this bill that call for restrictions to be imposed  regarding questioning of young offenders. 

   1) It does not define a recognizable or enforceable standard. 
  
   2)  It does not improve public safety.

3) It is unnecessary since the Bill is replete with protections for this group. 

4) In my experience, when an offender who has cooperated with the police is honest and accepts responsibility for his actions, is a critical factor in recommending consideration.

   5) Moreover, this provision may actually serve to create

   unjust results. 

The first step in every criminal investigation is to get to the truth.  Questioning defendants does, sometimes, form the basis for their arrest.  On the other hand, questioning defendants also may serve to have an individual released, who would otherwise be wrongfully charged and it might help to file the correct charge against the right individual.  Noone is served when the wrong person is arrested or they are overcharged.

We have years and years of experience in defining when and under what circumstances police can question an individual. This particular provision should be excised from the Legislation.

Let me offer a circumstance where this provision will commonly come into play.  Like it or not, this Legislation will encourage criminal enterprises to recruit younger individuals. For example, drug traffickers will recruit 17 year olds knowing that these individuals cannot now be prosecuted.  With the above referenced provision, regarding the questioning of 16 and 17 year old offenders, those individuals cannot even be questioned.  If our goal is to help the underage offender but at the same time prosecute the adults who are luring the underage offender into the Criminal Justice System then we should be allowed to question the underage offender.

B.  Extending YO to age 20.  This provision does not promote safety and flies in the face of victim’s rights and protections.  I am sure you are aware that if any individual is granted YO then they are not required to register under SORA.  Already in the Bill is an “amnesty” - record expungement provision.  I do not see that we need also to have an extended age for YO.  If an under 21 year old defendant follows the provisions of the expungement portion of the Bill then YO type protection will be afforded to them.

Furthermore, YO status should not be a bar to either registration under SORA nor should it be a bar to the mandatory taking of a DNA sample.

C. Adjustment. As I understand it, we have a Family Court Act

   which was put into place largely to deal with truants, ie

   PINS, for underage minor offenders.  It allows, actually

   requires, a probation officer to “adjust” a PINS petition

   rather than take up the time and expense of the court by

   filing a petition in Family Court.  This process,

   “adjustment”, is based on an interview with the youth,

   preferable with their parent present, and a risk assessment

   - no DA, no judicial overview, no victim input.  It is my

   understanding that seldom is there even an independent

   investigation done by probation.  With regard to 13 and 14

   year olds’ PINS petitions, this procedure may make sense. 

   However, to now put Penal Law offenses into the same

   procedure, ie., no DA, no judge, no victim input, no

   independent investigation, for 16 and 17 year old offenders

   is a very bad idea.

In my judgment, every 16 and 17 year old misdemeanor, felony, and domestic violence related harassment charge should go to a DA.  If the youth court is in place many of these cases will originate there.  The DA can transfer the appropriate cases, on notice to the victim, to Family Court.  Even those cases that are prosecuted by the District Attorney, in the youth part, still have all of the other protections afforded by the statute ie., the sealing of records, lower sentences, etc. The PINS adjustment procedure for criminal cases and victim cases (harassments) is a provision I could never support. 

The list of cases, primarily violent felony offenses, which are excluded from the increased age of criminal responsibility, should be expanded.  Bear in mind this is just a jurisdictional step. It does not determine the outcome of the case either by way of prosecution or sentence.  All of the Bills’ protections, ie., transfer to Family Court, non-jury prosecutions in youth court, youthful offender adjudications, sealing of records, expungement of records, lower sentencings, are still available. Having a case included in the expanded list of cases simply means that the offender’s case is reviewed by a DA and a judge, with victim input, as they currently are.  Statistically, the overwhelming majority of these cases today do not result in adult prosecutions.  Assuming that this Bill improves services and we see that those improved services are effective in reducing recidivism, I predict that fewer and fewer cases will be prosecuted.  Again, this change simply allows the system to look at each case and try and reach a just result, it does not predetermine the result.

I would include in the excluded cases category every Article 130 arrest (sex offenses) and every domestic violence incident.  I would also include every sale or possession with intent to sell heroin case.  Again, this change simply allows the system to look at each case and try and reach a just result, it does not predetermine the result.

Sentencing.  The new sentencing guidelines mandated by this draft of the bill are unnecessarily lenient.  Rape in the First Degree, Manslaughter, Assault in the First Degree, would now draw a 1 to 7 year determinate sentence.  It would be very difficult for me to try and explain to the victim of a rape or the victim’s family in a manslaughter case that the person who committed this crime could receive as little as one year in prison.

I believe that the basic premise behind this Bill presents an opportunity to improve our Criminal Justice System.  I cannot even imagine the additional costs associated with these changes or where the money will come from but that is not my focus.  My focus is the safety of the people I represent.  I would like the opportunity to stand with you and support a Bill that would do that.  This current proposal is not that Bill.

I would be happy to speak with you regarding this matter in further detail at your convenience.  Until then I remain.

Very Truly Yours,

HOLLEY CARNRIGHT

 

Kaj Erik Eriksen press release

                                                            

DISTRICT ATTORNEY D. HOLLEY CARNRIGHT ANNOUNCES:  SEXUAL PREDATOR CONVICTED

            Kaj-Erik Eriksen a/k/a Richard Lewis, 60, of 73 Crown Street, Kingston, was convicted Friday, March 20, 2015, by an Ulster County Jury on all counts including Predatory Sexual Assault of a Child, a Class “A-II” felony, Course of Sexual Conduct Against a Child in the First Degree, a Class “B” violent felony, two counts of Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree a Class “D” violent felony and Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree a Class “E” felony.  The verdict followed a week-long trial which commenced Monday, March 16, 2015, before Ulster County Court Judge, Honorable Donald A. Williams.  The jury, which consisted of eight women and four men, deliberated for approximately an hour and a half.

At the trial, three victims, now adults, testified to sexual abuse, including oral sexual conduct, which occurred at the defendant’s residence and his prior residence, both in the City of Kingston, over the course of years.  The victim of the top count met the defendant around 2004 and testified to a of course conduct which included numerous sexual acts which occurred between 2004 and 2008 while the victim was an elementary school student at Meagher Elementary School and while attending J. Watson Bailey Middle School.  The victim of the second count met the defendant around 2000 and testified that sexual abuse began when the victim was around eight years old and continued for a year or more between 2000 and 2003.  The defendant performed oral sex on the third victim once in the summer of 2011. The defendant also engaged in sexual acts with the first victim after they turned thirteen including oral sex in both 2009 and 2012.  The People called Dr. Donald Lewittes, Ph.D. to testify to behaviors of child and adolescent victims of sexual abuse such as delayed reporting and reasons for continued association with the perpetrator.  In this case the defendant had bought the victims expensive gifts such as snowboards, video game systems and games, dirt bikes and a quad all terrain vehicle.  He also took them and their friends on snowboarding trips, camping trips, swimming and even to Disney World.     

Eriksen was arrested in April of 2014 following an investigation by the Kingston Police Department.  He was indicted by an Ulster Grand Jury in June of 2014 and a superseding indictment was handed up in September of 2014 adding one additional count. 

Eriksen has previously been convicted of Endangering the Welfare of a Child in Kingston City Court in 2007.  He also was previously convicted in the state of Washington under the name of Richard Lewis for Indecent Liberties with a Minor in the early 1980’s.  Indecent Liberties with a Minor is the equivalent of Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree under New York Law.

Carnright noted, “This man preyed upon the innocence and vulnerability of children.  He insidiously manipulated them and their families in order to gain access to these children and have opportunities to engage in this abhorrent conduct.  This is exactly the type of conduct that caused the legislature to create the Class “A-II” felony of Predatory Sexual Assault of a Child and extend the Statute of Limitations for child victims.   Not only did Eriksen victimize these young people and their families when he engaged in this conduct, he victimized them again by forcing them to come in to Court and relive these horrors in front of a jury, a fact which I am sure will not be lost on Judge Williams when the defendant is sentenced.

The defendant faces twenty five years to life in prison on the top count, twenty five years on the second count, and up to eighteen years on the remaining counts, all of which can run consecutively.  He will be required to register under the New York State Sexual Offender Registration Act.  The case is being prosecuted by Special Victims Bureau Chief Katherine R. Van Loan.  The defendant is represented by the Carol Morgan Esq. of the Law Office of Mitchell Spinac.

 

 

Press Release - Michael D'Alberto Appeal

FROM:     HOLLEY CARNRIGHT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DATE:     MARCH 19, 2015

The Appellate Division, Third Department has unanimously affirmed the June 11, 2013 conviction of Michael D’Alberto upon his plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree, two counts, class D felonies. 

In December, 2011, while unemployed and running out of money, the defendant and his friend decided to break into his parents’ home, as well as several other residences to bolster his dwindling cash supply.  Sometime between December 23, 2011 and January 6, 2012, the defendant, assisted by his cohort, put their plan into action and committed a string of burglaries in the Ulster County area. 

Defendant eventually waived indictment and pled guilty.  Defendant was subsequently sentenced by County Court Judge Donald A. Williams to consecutive two and one-third to seven years in State prison. 

On appeal, defendant claimed that his sentence was unduly harsh and excessive. The Appellate Division did not agree.

On appeal, the defendant is represented by Assistant Public Defender Michael K. Gould, Esq.  Assistant District Attorney Joan Gudesblatt Lamb, Esq. handled the appeal for the District Attorney’s Office.

Press Conference Regarding Juvenile Justice Act - Friday, March 20th, 2015, 11:00 AM

FROM: HOLLEY CARNRIGHT, ULSTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DATE: MARCH 19, 2015

RE: PRESS CONFERENCE – FRIDAY MARCH 20^TH AT 11:00 AM

Greetings:

There are 2 versions of the 2016 NYS Budget Bill being considered in Albany that contain seismic changes in our Criminal Justice System.  Neither version of what is being called the “Juvenile Justice Act”, in my judgment, have been fully vetted.  Few people have even a rudimentary understanding of the changes which are being proposed.  These Bills have the potential of having the greatest impact on our Criminal Justice System in decades.

I will be having an informational press conference tomorrow at 11:00 at the Ulster County Law Enforcement Center, 380 Boulevard, Kingston, to discuss the Juvenile Justice Act.  My goal is to bring more awareness to the public concerning these matters.  I hope you or a representative will be able to attend.

Press Release - Tyrone Chappelle/Ryan Novick/Michael Taylor Appeals

PRESS RELEASE

FROM:     HOLLEY CARNRIGHT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DATE:     MARCH 13, 2015

The Appellate Division, Third Department has unanimously affirmed judgments of conviction in the following cases:

People v Tyrone Chappelle

Defendant was convicted on September 13, 2012 following a jury trial of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, as a result of his involvement in two separate sales of cocaine on November 16, 2011 to a confidential informant while an undercover officer was present and witnessed the transactions.  Defendant’s arrest and conviction stemmed from a joint operation entitled “Operation Clean Sweep” conducted by Kingston Police, the State Police and the URGENT Task Force.

Following his conviction, defendant, a prior felony offender, was sentenced by County Court Judge Donald A. Williams to concurrent determinate terms of 10 years with three years postrelease supervision on his possession convictions and concurrent 15 year sentences with three years postrelease supervision on the sale counts. 

On appeal, defendant maintained that reversible error occurred because a small portion of the jury voir dire was not stenographically transcribed, and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to this ‘glaring’ omission.  Noting that the absence of a stenographic record of jury selection does not, per se, require reversal of defendant’s conviction, the Court, in rejecting defendant’s claim, further noted that defendant did not request that any part of the voir dire be recorded nor assert that he was prejudiced as a result of the stenographer’s failure to do so.  The Court also concluded that defendant’s claim that County Court erred in admitting the cocaine into evidence was unpreserved for appellate review and that in any event, the People provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the substance to establish that it was cocaine secured from the defendant. 

On appeal, the defendant is represented by John Ferrara, Esq. of Monticello, New York.  Assistant District Attorney Joan Gudesblatt Lamb, Esq. handled the appeal for the District Attorney’s Office.

People v Ryan Novick

Defendant was convicted on March 6, 2013 following a jury trial in the Ulster County Court of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree as a result of his involvement in a bank robbery at the Sawyer Savings Bank in the Town of Saugerties on April 10, 2012.

After he was convicted of these charges, defendant was sentenced by County Court Judge Williams to a State prison term of three and one-half to seven years. 

Although the evidence against him was absolutely overwhelming, on appeal, defendant argued that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence because his girlfriend Amanda Muh’s testimony was patently incredible since she testified in exchange for a favorable plea deal.  In addition to concluding that defendant’s convictions were not contrary to the weight of the evidence, the Appellate Division, Third Department, addressing defendant’s other contentions, found that both County Court’s Sandoval and Molineux rulings were proper and not an abuse of discretion and that the prosecutor’s summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

On appeal, defendant is represented by Cliff Gordon, Esq. of Monticello, New York.  Assistant District Attorney Timothy D. Lawson handled the appeal for the District Attorney’s Office. 

People v Michael Taylor

Defendant was convicted upon a jury verdict rendered July 6, 2012 of the crimes of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree as a result of an incident which occurred on November 22, 2011.  On that date, defendant made two separate sales of crack cocaine to an undercover officer in the City of Kingston as part of a multi-agency investigation into drug trafficking in and around the City of Kingston.

Defendant was subsequently sentenced by County Court to an aggregate prison term of 15 years in State prison with three years of postrelease supervision on all four counts. 

On appeal, defendant claimed that his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated because counsel failed to conduct an adequate cross examination of the investigator as to whether he had performed field tests on the substances purchased from the defendant. He also argued that County Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences and that that error rendered his sentence unduly harsh and excessive.  The Appellate Division, Third Department found defendant’s claims to be without merit.

On appeal, defendant is represented by Arthur G. Dunn, Esq. of Troy, New York.  Shirley Huang, Esq. of Kingston, New York handled the appeal for the District Attorney’s Office.