Court of Appeals Leave Granted in Four OAD Cases

On September 28, 2017, dissenting Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels granted leave in People v. Rafael Sanabria to determine the question of whether Mr. Sanabria was deprived of his right to present a defense where the court allowed the prosecutor to question a defense expert about certain prejudicial details of a prior conviction, but prevented that expert from explaining why he doubted that Mr. Sanabria actually committed the crime, as the conviction was vacated on appeal and Mr. Sanabria was allowed to enter a plea without conceding guilt. In addition, Justice Manzanet-Daniels departed from the majority in finding that Mr. Sanabria was denied effective representation because his attorney introduced additional, highly prejudicial information about the prior conviction during voir dire and through the submission of exhibits, notwithstanding the trial court’s preclusion of such evidence. Mr. Sanabria is represented by Supervising Attorney Margaret E. Knight.

On September 26, 2017, Justice Barbara R. Kapnick granted leave in People v. Carlos Tapia to consider whether, in an assault involving multiple assailants, a defendant’s intent to inflict serious physical injury with a weapon can be inferred solely by his participation in the assault, absent any evidence the defendant himself used a weapon or expected that any of the assailants might do so.  Mr. Tapia is represented by Volunteer Appellate Defender Daniel A. Rubens from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Supervising Attorney Eunice C. Lee.

On August 14, 2017, Judge Michael J. Garcia granted leave in People v. Damian Jones, which raises the issue of whether, under New York’s Enterprise Corruption statute, the prosecution can prove the existence of a “criminal enterprise” with an “ascertainable structure” without evidence that a leadership structure or other system of authority existed at the time of the conduct charged.  Mr. Jones is represented by Volunteer Appellate Defender Scott M. Danner from Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP and Supervising Attorney Rosemary Herbert.

On June 29, 2017, Judge Eugene M. Fahey granted leave in People v. Princesam Bailey to address whether the trial court should have discharged a juror or, at the least, conducted an inquiry into the juror’s ability to remain fair and impartial after the juror directed an outburst at defense counsel during the questioning of a witness.  Mr. Bailey is represented by Supervising Attorney Margaret E. Knight.

Christina A. Swarns Selected to Lead the Office of the Appellate Defender

Christina A. Swarns

New York, New York—The Board of Directors of the Office of the Appellate Defender (OAD) is proud to announce today that it has selected Christina A. Swarns, a nationally respected lawyer and criminal justice advocate, to serve as OAD’s third Attorney-In-Charge, effective August 28, 2017.  

 Most recently serving as the Litigation Director for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), Ms. Swarns enjoys a national reputation as a criminal justice reform expert.  Her extraordinary criminal, civil and appellate defense expertise will powerfully advance OAD’s longstanding mission of advocating for poor people convicted of felonies in Manhattan and the Bronx.  

 Ms. Swarns succeeds Richard M. Greenberg, who retired after serving as OAD’s Attorney-in-Charge for over 20 years.  During that time, Mr. Greenberg oversaw tremendous success at OAD, as the organization developed and earned its reputation as one of the nation’s premier appellate defense organizations.

 Ms. Swarns has dedicated her professional career to the defense of the most marginalized people in the criminal justice system.  She worked for 14 years at the LDF and served for the last three years as its Litigation Director.  In that capacity, she oversaw all aspects of LDF’s economic justice, education, political participation and criminal justice litigation, and served as lead counsel in some of this country’s highest-profile death penalty cases.  In the 2016-2017 Term of the United States Supreme Court, for instance, Ms. Swarns argued, and won, Buck v. Davis, a Texas death penalty case challenging the introduction of explicitly racially biased evidence at trial.  Ms. Swarns was the only Black woman to argue in last year’s Supreme Court term, and is one of only a handful of Black women to have argued before the nation’s highest court.  Ms. Swarns’s defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal—often called “the world’s most famous death row prisoner”—led a federal court to vacate Mr. Abu-Jamal’s death sentence based on improper instruction to the sentencing jury.

 “We are thrilled to have Christina assume the leadership of OAD,” said Sean Hecker, Chairman of OAD’s Board of Directors and a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton.  “Her unrivaled reputation in the indigent defense community, her passionate and life-long commitment to criminal justice, and her years of experience in supervising intelligent, creative and dedicated lawyers make her the perfect fit for our stellar organization.”

 “Christina is the perfect leader to continue the legacy of dedicated, compassionate and creative appellate representation of indigent clients championed so effectively by Rick Greenberg and the fine lawyers of OAD for so many years,” said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, an OAD Board member, its founder and first Attorney-in-Charge, now a partner at Orrick.

 “It is an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to serve OAD and its clients,” said Ms. Swarns.  “I firmly believe that the American criminal justice system must be administered fairly and without regard to racial, social or economic status, so that all communities receive fair and appropriate police protection and all individuals charged with or convicted of crimes are afforded the full range of safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution.  By consistently offering powerful and effective advocacy on behalf of indigent people convicted of felonies, OAD has, since its inception, stood at the vanguard of institutional appellate defenders.  I therefore look forward to working with the brilliant OAD staff to ensure that all of their clients receive vigorous, creative, and effective appellate representation.”

 A passionate legal advocate, Ms. Swarns speaks and writes regularly on issues concerning race, law, and criminal justice.  She is frequently interviewed by media outlets including:  PBS News Hour, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, National Public Radio, Democracy Now!, and the New York Times.  

 Before becoming LDF’s Litigation Director, Ms. Swarns served as the Director of LDF’s Criminal Justice Project, where she analyzed, developed and implemented litigation, organizing, public education, communications and other advocacy strategies.  Prior to joining LDF, Ms. Swarns served as a Supervising Assistant Federal Defender and Assistant Federal Defender at the Capital Habeas Unit of Philadelphia’s Federal Community Defender Office. Ms. Swarns began her legal career as a Staff Attorney with the Legal Aid Society’s Criminal Defense Division in New York.

 Ms. Swarns earned a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a B.A. from Howard University.

About OAD

OAD was created in 1988 as a new breed of public defender organization committed to providing the highest quality legal representation, while also training new generations of lawyers. Since its founding, OAD has developed a national reputation for superb appellate advocacy and innovation. The organization is known for its holistic, client-centered, approach to representation. It has forged partnerships with many of the leading law firms in New York, under which attorneys from those firms handle appeals under the supervision of senior OAD attorneys. OAD has been recognized by the New York State Bar Association, as well as the appellate courts, for its excellence. The United States Department of Justice has repeatedly awarded OAD grants to help underwrite its pursuit of claims of wrongful conviction.

For more information, please contact:

Carolyn Norris : (212) 402-4100

Appellate Division Reduces Attempted Murder Sentence

After considering arguments that OAD client S.T.'s sentence for attempted murder was excessive, in light of his young age and his noteworthy academic achievement and potential, and taking into consideration a significant trauma that S.T. had witnessed in the weeks before in the incident at issue, the Appellate Division reduced his sentence from 16 years to 10 years.  S.T. is represented by Sharmeen Mazumder.

Judge Grants Post-Conviction Motion Vacating Conviction

A Bronx County judge found that OAD client Amir Douglas was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel and vacated his conviction for first degree gang assault and second degree assault in the death of a fellow incarcerated person at Rikers Island.  While the prosecution's case relied entirely upon the testimony of three other inmates, his attorney failed to request that jurors be instructed that, under New York law, a person cannot be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of purported accomplices.  The court found: “There is a reasonable likelihood that [Mr. Douglas] was convicted by insufficient evidence because the jury was not advised to apply the proper standard.  .   .   . [He] has established that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to seek accomplice corroboration jury charges for the three inmate witnesses who had been implicated in the same incident.” Amir Douglas was represented by Sara Gurwitch and Joe Nursey.

Appellate Division Reduces Harsh and Excessive Sentence for Attempted Burglary

Douglas Locust was charged with multiple counts of attempted second- and third-degree burglary after he was observed by police pulling on the doors to several buildings in lower Manhattan. The furthest that Mr. Locust was able to reach was the vestibule of a few of the buildings; he did not access any building beyond that point. He was also charged with one count of third-degree burglary stemming from a separate incident. Mr. Locust pled guilty to one count of attempted burglary in the second degree and one count of burglary in the third degree. He was sentenced to six and one-half years in prison on the attempted burglary count, which was only six months below the maximum possible sentence and more than double the minimum sentence of three years. He received a concurrent sentence of two to four years on the third-degree burglary count. On appeal, Mr. Locust argued that his sentence was harsh and excessive where, essentially, he only turned a few door handles. Mr. Locust did not take property from any of the locations nor did he threaten or harm anyone. The Appellate Division agreed and reduced his sentence on the attempted burglary count to four years. Mr. Locust is represented by Kerry Jamieson. To read the decision, click here.

Court of Appeals Reverses Manslaughter Conviction Because Trial Court Erroneously Precluded Voir Dire Questioning About Involuntary Confessions

On December 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the criminal conviction of OAD client James Miller. Mr. Miller, who was charged with a homicide, made statements to the police admitting his involvement in a shooting. At trial, Mr. Miller testified that his previous confession was false and was coerced by the police. Nonetheless, when counsel asked to voir dire prospective jurors about their ability to disregard a confession they deemed involuntary, the trial court denied the request based, in part, on the District Attorney’s indecision about whether to introduce the confession at trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that “the trial court abused its discretion when it entirely precluded questioning on the issue of involuntary confessions and refused to make its own inquiry of the potential jurors on the issue.” In so holding, the court noted that defense counsel’s proposed questioning “went to the heart of determining whether those jurors could be impartial and afford defendant a fair trial,” Mr. Miller was “facing the most serious charge of murder,” and Mr. Miller’s defense was “premised . . . on the involuntariness of his inculpatory statements.” Mr. Miller is represented by volunteer attorney Daniella Main, of Alston & Bird LLP, and Margaret Knight. To read the decision, click here.

Appellate Division Reduces Sentence of OAD Client Convicted of Controlled Substance Charges

The Appellate Division reduced the sentence of OAD client Bryan Otero. Mr. Otero, who was only 19 years old at the time of his arrest, was charged in connection with a conspiracy to sell drugs, which involved a number of other people. Mr. Otero was one of the youngest members of the alleged conspiracy and had no prior criminal record, yet Mr. Otero received one of the harshest sentences meted out to any of his codefendants following a guilty plea to third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance. The reduction in sentence from six years to four years resulted in a term that more appropriately reflected Mr. Otero’s relative culpability, and led to his almost immediate release. Mr. Otero is represented by Margaret Knight. To read the decision, click here.

Appellate Division Affirms Order Granting a New Parole Hearing to OAD Client

OAD client Niki Rossakis was convicted in 1996 of second-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of her husband, whom she maintained had abused her for years and was threatening her at the time of the shooting. Despite the fact that she had no prior criminal record, she was initially sentenced to a term of 23 years to life imprisonment, which was later reduced on appeal to 15 years to life imprisonment. Ms. Rossakis has an exemplary institutional record. She has obtained two associate’s degrees, served on the inmate grievance committee, completed all rehabilitative programming available to her, and earned praise for her work as a telephone operator.  Yet the Parole Board  repeatedly denied her parole, focusing almost exclusively on the serious nature of the crime. After her administrative appeals were denied, OAD successfully filed a petition challenging the Parole Board’s action. The Board then appealed the Supreme Court decision, which found that the Board had acted arbitrarily in denying parole and failing to give proper consideration to the range of statutory factors it was supposed to consider. In a unanimous decision, the First Department affirmed the lower court’s order requiring the Board to give Ms. Rossakis a new parole hearing at which the appropriate factors must be considered. Ms. Rossakis was previously represented by former OAD Attorney-in-Charge Richard M. Greenberg, and she is currently represented by Eunice C. Lee. To read the decision, click here.

Appellate Division Reverses Legally Insufficient Attempted Murder Conviction

On November 1, 2016, the Appellate Division reversed Raheim Bruno’s attempted second-degree murder conviction because the evidence was legally insufficient to establish accessorial liability. Mr. Bruno gave a statement to the police in which he described how he and a friend went to a Bronx apartment and, while they were in the apartment, another man shot and killed two of the occupants and seriously wounded a third man. When the man turned the gun on Mr. Bruno and his friend, it jammed and he and his friend were able to escape. Despite suffering from a traumatic brain injury, the surviving victim subsequently identified Mr. Bruno’s friend as the person who shot him, although he had previously named someone else as the shooter. The victim placed Mr. Bruno in the apartment at the time of the shooting, but did not ascribe any role to him. Despite the slim evidence against him, Mr. Bruno was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 22 years in prison. On appeal, OAD argued that the evidence was legally insufficient, as it showed no more than Mr. Bruno’s mere presence in the apartment at the time of the shooting. In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division agreed and ordered that the charges against Mr. Bruno be dismissed. Raheim Bruno was represented by former staff attorney Alejandro Fernandez and Acting Attorney-in-Charge Rosemary Herbert. To read the decision, click here.

Court Of Appeals Finds Exception To Residential Burglary Statute Where The Accused Was Found in the Basement of a Deli on the Ground Floor of an Apartment Building

In a significant decision regarding the scope of the residential burglary statute, the Court of Appeals, by a 6-1 vote, reduced the conviction of OAD client, Ronel Joseph, from second degree burglary to third degree burglary.  Mr. Joseph was arrested in the basement of a deli that was on the street level floor of an apartment building.  Under normal rules, the burglary of any premises that is attached to a dwelling, e.g., the office of a hotel, or the garage of an apartment building, is considered second degree burglary.  While the Court had previously articulated a possible exception, where "the burglar neither comes nor readily can come near to anyone's living quarters," that exception had never before been applied by any appellate court in the state.  Thus, the Court's recognition and application of the exception in Mr. Joseph's case is ground-breaking and provides an avenue for relief in similar cases going forward.  Mr. Joseph is represented by Eunice C. Lee.  To read the decision, click here.


Office of the Appellate Defender hosted its 23rd annual First Monday in October event on Wednesday, October 5, 2016, at NYU School of Law.  The program, which was attended by about 500 judges, lawyers, and guests, featured a mock Supreme Court argument preceded by a gala cocktail reception.  This year's advocates and recipients of the Gould Award for Outstanding Oral Advocacy were Lewis J. Liman, of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, and David M. Zornow, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.  Audrey Strauss, of Alcoa, Inc., received the OAD Counsel for Justice Award.  The Honorable Jonathan Lippman, former Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, now with Latham & Watkins LLP, served as Chief Justice of the Mock Supreme Court, and Antonia M. Apps (Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP), Jonathan P. Bach (Cooley LLP), G. Michael Bellinger (Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP), Marc P. Berger (Ropes & Gray LLP), Lori E. Lesser (Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP), Hallie B. Levin (Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP), Tai H. Park (Park Jensen Bennett LLP), and Anthony L. Ricco (Law Office of Anthony L. Ricco, Esq.) served as Associate Justices.  The Court heard argument in Apple, Inc. v. F.B.I., a hypothetical case that confronted the tension between individual privacy and the needs of law enforcement in the digital age.  The event was a major success, and OAD thanks the participants and honorees, and all of our many supporters.  

OAD Awarded DOJ Wrongful Conviction Review Grant

On September 14, 2016, the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it has awarded OAD a Wrongful Conviction Review grant.  The grant is worth $217,294 over two years, and will support our Reinvestigation Project.

In 2007, OAD created its Reinvestigation Project to identify and reinvestigate cases of possible wrongful conviction.  Employing a detailed questionnaire and intake checklist protocol, unique to appellate defender offices, OAD screens every new assigned case for indicia of the tell-tale signs of wrongful conviction, including mistaken identification, false confession, prosecutorial misconduct, jailhouse snitches, and junk science.  When a case is selected for reinvestigation, our team acts quickly to obtain all records and information available and to proceed with a strategic reinvestigation and litigation plan.

The Project’s work has resulted in the full exoneration of one OAD client, Latisha Johnson, who was serving a 40-year sentence for a crime she did not commit.  In another case, People v. Ricardo Jimenez, the Appellate Division, First Department, recognized actual innocence as a ground for vacating a conviction, and remanded our case for an evidentiary hearing into our claims.  In addition, the Project has obtained vacaturs of convictions and new trials for other clients who were wrongfully convicted, and has identified several cases of wrongful conviction that are currently being reinvestigated and litigated.

The Reinvestigation Project, which is led by Director of Reinvestigation Anastasia Heeger, was previously awarded federal grant money in 2010 and 2012, and has now, for a third time, received a two-year grant. We are grateful to the Department of Justice for recognizing the efficacy and success of OAD’s model.

October 4 is Wrongful Conviction Day.  OAD will join with the Innocence Project and many others around the country in helping to shine a light on aspects of our criminal justice system that contribute to wrongful convictions.


Office of the Appellate Defender mourns the passing of former Staff Attorney Diane E. Courselle.  Diane, who worked at OAD between 1992 and 1997, died on September 11, 2016, from complications of Lupus.  Since 1998, Diane was Professor of Law and Director of the Defender Aid Program at the University of Wyoming College of Law. We remember her as a brilliant, dedicated, warm, fun-loving, and loyal friend and colleague.  She was a steadfast and creative defense attorney, and she inspired all who knew and worked with her.  

Appellate Division Reverses Conviction and Frees OAD Client Serving 15 Years to Life

On September 1, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment against OAD client Habiyb Mohammed based upon its finding of insufficient evidence to prove Mr. Mohammed’s guilt.

Mr. Mohammed was convicted of first degree conspiracy and sentenced to 15 years to life imprisonment for his alleged involvement in a wide-ranging conspiracy to sell cocaine.  The prosecution’s case against Mr. Mohammed consisted almost entirely of the voice of a man referred to as “Habiyb,” who is heard briefly on only two of over forty monitored phone conversations.  The court found that although the evidence was sufficient to prove that someone called Habiyb Mohammed was a part of the conspiracy, the “record is devoid of any identification” of Mr. Mohammed to be the same as the person who is heard on the monitored calls.

Mr. Mohammed is represented by OAD Supervising Attorney Joseph Nursey.  To read the opinion, click here.

Court of Appeals Dismisses Convictions on Speedy Trial Grounds

The New York Court of Appeals dismissed identity-theft-related convictions for OAD client Scott Barden today. The Court found that Mr. Barden's right to a speedy trial under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30 had been violated because the People were not ready for trial within the statutory six month deadline. Specifically, the Court resolved a long-gestating issue of whether a defense attorney's response that "that should be fine" to a proposed adjournment date constituted consent to excluding that time from the speedy trial calculations. According to the Court of Appeals, such a generic statement by defense counsel is too ambiguous to be deemed consent.

Because the speedy trial issue resulted in the dismissal of Mr. Barden's convictions, the Court left open an issue currently dividing the Appellate Divisions about whether the numbers associated with a credit are the equivalent to a physical credit card under New York's Penal Law.

Mr. Barden was represented by former OAD Attorney-in-Charge Richard Greenberg. Former NYU Clinic students Elizabeth Jordan and Christine La Rochelle also represented Mr. Barden before the Appellate Division, First Department. Click here to read the Court of Appeals decision.

Appellate Division Dismisses Kidnapping Charge

On May 19, 2016, the Appellate Division reversed the kidnapping conviction of OAD client Rafael Nevaro, and dismissed that count.  Although Mr. Nevaro was convicted of other charges which the court let stand, his sentence was reduced from 15 years to a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years.  The court agreed with OAD that Mr. Nevaro never threatened to use force against the complainant, and therefore did not abduct her within the meaning of the kidnapping statute.  Mr. Nevaro is represented by Eunice Lee (with former OAD attorney Leila Tabbaa on the brief).  To read the decision, click here.

Federal Court Grants Habeas Corpus Petition in OAD Case

In Carmichael v. Chappius, OAD achieved a very rare victory on a habeas petition in federal court on behalf of OAD client, Brian Carmichael, who is serving a 17-year sentence for an A-II drug conviction.  Southern District Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the petition on the ground that the trial court and Appellate Division unreasonably applied federal constitutional law in overruling trial counsel’s Batson claim that the prosecution exercised its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory fashion.  In granting the petition, the court declined to adopt a Magistrate’s report that recommended denial.  Moreover, the court engaged in a sophisticated and detailed analysis of Batson law and concluded that the New York courts were wrong to hold that statistical evidence alone cannot support a prima facie showing of discrimination.  As for remedy, the court remanded to the New York County Supreme Court to either (i) hold a reconstruction hearing to hear the DA’s race-neutral reasons for the strikes and ultimately decide the Batson claim, or (ii) hold a new trial.  Mr. Carmichael is represented by Sara Gurwitch. Click here to read the decision. 

Appellate Division Reverses Convictions in Two More OAD Appeals

On April 19, 2016, just two weeks after reversing convictions in two OAD appeals, the Appellate Division again reversed two convictions in OAD cases.

In People v. Ronald Hechavarria, the Appellate Division reversed our client’s robbery conviction and sentence of 15 years, based on the trial court’s improper ruling granting a reverse-Batson challenge against the defense.  As explained in the decision, there was no support for the judge’s conclusion that defense counsel’s gender-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges at issue were pretextual.  In this case, the prosecution sought the minimum sentence of 5 years after trial, but the court imposed a term of 15 years.  On appeal, the DA agreed to a sentence reduction to 5 years, but the court went further and reversed the conviction.  Mr. Hechavarria has been out on bail pending appeal and should remain free pending resolution of the case.  Mr. Hechavarria is represented by Senior Staff Attorney Kerry Jamieson.  Read the decision here.

In People v. Malik Hawkins, the Appellate Division, in a unanimous signed opinion by Justice Roslyn H. Richter, reversed our client’s gun possession conviction and 5 year sentence.  The Appellate Division found that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce photographs showing the defendants holding guns and making gang signs, as well as Facebook messages from our client months after the date of the arrest, discussing his use of guns.  The court held that this evidence was inadmissible under the Molineux rule, since they were not probative and went only to propensity to possess guns.  The court further held that, even if marginally probative, the prejudicial impact outweighed any probative value.  Mr. Hawkins is represented by Rosie Herbert, who argued the appeal.  Former OAD Staff Attorney Leila Tabbaa (now with The Bronx Defenders) worked on the brief while at OAD.  Read the decision here,

Appellate Division Reverses Convictions in Two OAD Appeals

On April 5, 2016, the Appellate Division reversed convictions in two OAD appeals.

In People v. Waun Smith, the court, in a unanimous signed opinion by Justice John W. Sweeny, Jr., agreed with OAD that where a defendant is charged with both qualifying offenses as well as other offenses that are neither defined as qualifying nor disqualifying, the defendant remains eligible for judicial diversion for drug treatment.  The court reversed Mr. Smith's forgery conviction and prison sentence and remanded for further proceedings.  This was a matter of first impression in the appellate courts, and trial courts had reached conflicting results.  Thus, this decision will have great precedential value, and will make many more defendants eligible for judicial diversion for drug treatment and an opportunity to avoid conviction and prison. Mr. Smith is represented by Thomas M. Nosewicz.  To read the decision, click here.

In People v. Devin T. Burley, the court unanimously reversed our client’s drug conviction because the court file contained a jury note, making a substantive inquiry, that was marked as an exhibit but never addressed on the record by the court.  Applying well-established law in this area, the court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.  Mr. Burley is represented by volunteer attorney Jarrod L.Schaeffer, of Debevoise & Plimpton, and Margaret Knight. To read the decision, click here.

Appellate Division Reduces Sentence for OAD Client

On January 7, 2016, the Appellate Division reduced the sentence of OAD client, Alexander Villegas, from 2 2/3 to 8 years to 1 1/3 to 4 years. Mr. Villegas, a former U.S. Marine, who had no prior contact with the criminal justice system, was convicted of three counts of criminal contempt for violating an order of protection. Mr. Villegas is represented by Tomoeh Murakami Tse. To read the decision, click here.