Articles Posted in and Weapons Possession

Published on:

By

Our client, a scholarship football player at Howard University, was arrested at LaGuardia Airport attempting to check his handgun for his travel home to Atlanta. He was charged with a felony in Queens criminal court – specifically, Criminal Possession of a Firearm in violation of Penal Law Section 265.01-b(1). Conviction for a felony would have had a huge number of consequences for the client, including possible time in prison, loss of his school scholarship, and others.

Though the client had a license to lawfully own and carry his firearm in his home state of Georgia, that right does not apply in New York. As such, his license was not, strictly speaking, a defense to the charges in New York. Nevertheless, Mr. Galluzzo successfully persuaded Queens prosecutors that the client had no malicious intent in bringing the firearm to New York, and that his possession of it in LaGuardia was attributable only to his mistaken assumption that his license permitted him to bring it to New York. Mr. Galluzzo further provided evidence of the client’s status as a scholarship student-athlete, his record of community service, and his good character. The prosecutors reviewed Mr. Galluzzo’s written submission and ultimately agreed to dismiss the felony and misdemeanor charges. The client was allowed to plead guilty to a non-criminal violation with a $120 fine, meaning that the client will have no public criminal record and can lawfully say that he has never been convicted of a crime.

Every years, hundreds of people are arrested in New York area airports for bringing otherwise-lawful firearms into the city. If you or a loved one have been arrested for that offense, you should strongly consider contacting Mr. Galluzzo. Mr. Galluzzo has successfully represented many people accused of having weapons at the airport with a strong record of success. As a former New York City prosecutor himself, he knows how to best persuade prosecutors to show leniency and decline to pursue felony charges against generally law-abiding people.

Published on:

By

Last week, a client of the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC was very pleased to receive a very lenient sentence in a federal case involving charges of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g). Our client – a 49-year-old man with several prior (but old) felony convictions – was arrested after shooting another person in the leg following a dispute on a Brooklyn sidewalk. The federal government charged him violating 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g) for possessing ammunition and having previously been convicted of a felony. The charge carries a maximum penalty of ten years in prison.

The entire incident was captured on surveillance tape from nearby buildings, and a witness identified our client as the shooter. Initially, the prosecutors sought a sentence near the maximum, between 8 and 10 years in prison. After a lengthy period of negotiation, the client’s attorney, Matthew Galluzzo, secured a plea agreement for the client with a sentencing range of between 33-41 months under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. However, following the client’s guilty plea, it was up to the federal judge to decide his ultimate sentence (the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory but not mandatory).

Prior to the sentencing hearing, Mr. Galluzzo submitted a lengthy memorandum detailing the client’s difficult upbring, his long period of productive employment, his supportive family network, his remorse for the crime, and the terrible conditions the client had endured at MDC Brooklyn during the pendency of the case. The federal judge (Judge Donnelly) was thus persuaded to give our client a downward variance far below the sentencing Guidelines, in sentencing him to 24 months in prison. Given the time that he has already spent in custody, that amounts to a sentence only slightly longer than time served. The client was thrilled was this result and with the prospect of returning home to his wife and son soon.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On June 28, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut announced an indictment charging sixteen individuals with a variety of federal crimes relating to the distribution of narcotics and the possession of firearms. The charges are extremely serious and carry lengthy potential jail sentences.

The indictment charges the following individuals:

LUIS FELICIANO, a.k.a. “Louminaty,” 38, of East Hartford

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Recently, Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and criminal appellate lawyer, was appointed by a federal court to represent an individual previously sentenced to 48 years in prison in connection with two armed robberies in the 1990s. The client, Leonard Johnson, had been so harshly penalized in part because of the now outdated laws relating to the “stacking” of federal firearm sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). Mr. Johnson filed a pro se motion for reconsideration under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c), and Mr. Galluzzo was appointed to supplement that appeal and improve upon it with his legal expertise.

Previously, judges were required to impose 25-year consecutive sentences on convictions for 924(c) firearm charges when the defendants had previous convictions for 924(c). However, the problem with this law is that a person who committed two violations of 924(c) would be sentenced to a 25-year mandatory minimum consecutive sentence, even if they committed that second 924(c) violation before being convicted of the first 924(c). That is precisely what happened to Mr. Johnson: he was arrested in North Carolina for a bank robbery with a firearm, and then charged shortly thereafter with another robbery with a firearm in New York. Even though he had not yet been convicted of a 924(c) charge when he committed the robbery in New York, he got the mandatory minimum consecutive 25-year sentence because the other 924(c) crime happened in North Carolina (and he was convicted in that case) before being sentenced in New York.

Congress clarified this issue recently such that in order for the mandatory consecutive 25-year sentence to apply, the first conviction for 924(c) had to have been final before the commission of the second 924(c) crime. Judges then generally have discretion to modify sentences imposed under the old scheme. United States v. Ballard, 2021 WL 3285009, at *4-*5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2021); 18 U.S.C. Section 3582. Mr. Galluzzo and Mr. Johnson argued that Mr. Johnson had undergone significant rehabilitation, that he suffered from a variety of health ailments, and that the requested sentence modification still constituted sufficient punishment for his offenses, in which no one was injured.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

One common federal criminal charge applies to the possession of firearms by felons. 18 U.S.C. 922g includes a variety of situations involving illegal firearm possession, but subsection 1 of that provision states:

      (g) It shall be unlawful for any person – 

        (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

A charge of 18 USC Section 924(c) for using or possessing a firearm in the course of drug trafficking or some other violent crime is a common criminal charge in federal court. The charge also carries very significant potential penalties that must run consecutive any other sentences imposed for other related crimes. Thus, if you or a loved one have been arrested or indicted for this crime, you should seriously consider retaining an aggressive and experienced federal criminal defense attorney like Matthew Galluzzo.

The statute reads as follows (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)):

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have successfully represented dozens of individuals accused of violating Penal Law Section 265.01 (Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree). In New York City, these cases are often brought as Desk Appearance Tickets, and the arrests are oftentimes made during routine examinations during traffic stops, in the subway system, or at the airport.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when:

(1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or “Kung Fu star”;  or
Continue reading →
Published on:

By

A federal appeals Court has held upheld – for now – a criminal statute which makes it illegal to possess a gravity knife in New York.

As former prosecutors who specialize in criminal defense, our attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have a great deal of experience assisting people who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being charged with weapons possession, in particular what are commonly referred to as ‘gravity knives.’ Indeed, many of our clients lawfully purchase these knives from such on-line marketplaces as Amazon.com or in popular brick-and-mortar stores like K-Mart. Completely unaware that the possession of such knives is illegal in New York, these clients openly carry the knives on their belts, or clipped to their pockets, only to find themselves in handcuffs and  going to criminal court charged with the Class “A” misdemeanor of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (which is punishable by up to 1 year in jail).

So what exactly is a gravity knife? A “Gravity knife” is defined under New York Penal Law 265.01(5) as “any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application or centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device.” In practical terms, any knife which a police officer can open with the flick of a wrist and which locks into place falls under this definition. Not surprisingly, police officers are particularly adept at opening and locking the knives into place.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

An F1 visa is a non-immigrant visa granted to people abroad who wish to enter the United States in order to attend academic institutions, training programs, or conservatories. As is the case with any non-citizen, an arrest and conviction for even the most petty offense can trigger serious consequences for an F1 visa holder, including revocation of the visa itself. While the stakes in every criminal case are high, things become even more complicated with F1 visa defendants. To be sure, a criminal attorney needs to be especially diligent when representing any non-citizen facing criminal prosecution for the simple reason that a drastic change in immigration status can potentially accompany any period of incarceration, probation, or even non-jail. As the lawyers at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have always urged, it is of utmost importance for non-citizens who are arrested to secure experienced counsel as early as possible in the case, and especially before any plea bargan is entrered into. Crafting pleas with an eye towards preserving citizenship/visa status is a delicate and nuanced process, which is why F1 Visa holders require experienced counsel to avoid all of the potential pitfalls.

Our lawyers have a great track record of representing F1 visa holders who are arrested in New York for charges including Petit Larceny, Assault, DWI, Theft of Service, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance, Marijuana possession, Weapons possession and more. One of the advantages F1 visa holders do have is that they often have minimal criminal justice contacts, if any, as well as solid resumes since they have been granted access to attend one of New York’s many fine academic institutions (many of our clients have attended Columbia or New York University, to name a couple). As former prosecutors, we are able to marshall our clients’ strengths and put together an effective and targeted strategy in each case in order to secure the best possible outcome. Our goal is always to leave our clients’ records intact, as well as ensure that they are able to preserve their visas and continue their studies here with minimal distraction. Our lawyers have also secured countless dismissals in such cases, which provides the best outlook for any non-citizen facing criminal prosecution.

If you or a loved one are studying here in the US on an F1 visa and have been arrested and charged with a crime or violation offense, do not hesitate to contact our team of experienced criminal defense lawyers at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo as soon as possible so as to avoid any negative consequences.

Published on:

By

O-1 visas are granted to individuals who possess extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics (O-1A), as well as those with a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry, and who have been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements (O-1B). O-2 visas are granted to those who accompany O-1’s for the purpose of assisting them in a specific event or performance. USCIC requires an O-2 play an “integral” role in the assistance of an O-1A’a activity, or provide “essential” assistance to the completion of an O-1B’s production. O-3 visas are granted to spouses or children of O-1 and O-2 holders. All three types of visas are usually granted for a period of up to three years, after which they may be extended in one-year increments, without limitation.

As in the case of any non-citizen, the stakes are higher for O-1, O-2 and O-3 visa holders who are arrested because they face the risk of visa revocation on top of any sentence which is authorized for the crime they’ve been arrested for. For this reason, our lawyers are extraordinarily diligent in their representation of visa holders (as well as non-citizens in general), where a great deal of effort must be placed on crafting dispositions with an eye towards preserving our clients' immigration status. In addition to being accomplished trial litigators, our attorneys are also top-notch negotiators who have secured many dismissals and non-criminal dispositions for our clients. Specifically, the attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have represented countless visa-holders with an impeccable record of success. For all of these reasons, it is imperative for any non-citizen who has been arrested (even given a Desk Appearance Ticket) to contact us as early in the process as possible. Even those charged with seemingly “minor” misdemeanors need to be diligent, for example, those charged with: Theft of Services (PL 165.15), Petit Larceny (PL 155.25), Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (PL 220.03), Criminal Mischief (PL 145.00), Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (PL 221.10), Assault in the Third Degree (PL 120.00), and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (PL 265.01).

Keep in mind, U.S. visa posts routinely perform criminal background checks on visa applicants, which can lead to devastating consequences for those who don't navigate the system properly, including, but not limited to, initiation of removal proceedings. For a myriad of reasons, it is critical for any O-1, O-2 or O-3 visa holder to contact an experienced attorney who understands the delicate nuances and immigration consequences posed in each of these cases. To be sure, the lawyers at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have successfully represented O-1 visa holder with great success. If you or a loved are faced with a criminal prosecution, contact our attorneys without delay.

Contact Information
11 Broadway #715
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 344-5180
We serve the following localities: New York City including Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2023, The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design