From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rowles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 31, 1992
188 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 31, 1992

Appeal from the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.).


When this matter was previously before us, we noted County Court's error in failing to have a second psychiatrist examine defendant, in accordance with CPL article 730, before accepting his plea to rape in the first degree ( 162 A.D.2d 774). We, however, ruled that this error was remediable if, at a reconstruction hearing, it was established that defendant was in fact competent at the time of his guilty plea. Accordingly, we withheld decision and remitted for a reconstruction hearing. The hearing was held before a different Judge (Battisti, Jr., J.), following which the court rendered a decision finding that, at the time defendant entered his guilty plea, he did not lack capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense.

There was evidence at the hearing which fully supported County Court's determination, consisting, inter alia, of testimony of the County Judge who presided over the prior proceedings in this matter, including the plea allocution, the attorney who represented defendant at all of the stages of those proceedings, defendant's probation officer on a prior conviction who had supervised him from August 1987 until he entered his guilty plea herein, and the psychiatrist who performed an examination to determine defendant's competency before he pleaded guilty. These witnesses established that, although defendant was mildly retarded and suffered from alcoholism, he was aware of the nature and seriousness of the charges against him, was able to communicate with his attorney and understood the attorney's role in defending him, was able to follow the plea negotiations and rationally participate with his attorney in deliberating on whether to plead guilty, and was aware of the charge to which he was pleading guilty and of the substantial punishment he faced. Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed.

Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Rowles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 31, 1992
188 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Rowles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROY ROWLES, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 31, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Colon

The circumstance upon which the motion court heavily relied and which the majority finds most compelling is…