From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 16, 1990

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Celli, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We agree with the determination of the court following the reconstruction hearing (see, People v. Bey, 144 A.D.2d 972, 974) that the People sustained their burden of demonstrating defendant's competency at the time of trial (see, People v. Wright, 124 A.D.2d 1015, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 751). The People produced the two psychiatrists whom the court had appointed to examine defendant prior to trial pursuant to CPL article 730. Citing the factors upon which they based their findings (compare, People v. Weech, 116 A.D.2d 975, 976-977), both experts testified about their examination of defendant and their conclusion that defendant understood the charges against him and the nature of the court proceedings, that he was able to assist in his own defense, and that he appeared to be feigning the symptoms of insanity or incompetence. The People also presented the testimony of the Assistant District Attorney who had prosecuted defendant. He testified that he recalled nothing unusual about defendant's behavior, appearance or attire during trial, and that defendant did not interrupt the proceedings or act in any unusual manner until the time of his second felony offender hearing. The prosecutor attributed defendant's outbursts at that stage to his anger and frustration at the prospect of being sentenced. Since the record bears out the prosecutor's assessment, we conclude that his testimony, in combination with the expert opinion evidence, suffices to establish defendant's competency at the time of trial.

Addressing defendant's remaining contentions on his consolidated appeals, we conclude that the separate photo array procedures involving the victim and a witness were not tainted by the fact that they had cooperated in creating a composite sketch of defendant; that the court's charge was in all respects proper; and that defendant's sentence is not unduly severe.


Summaries of

People v. Bey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Bey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CLAUDE FOOTMAN BEY…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
562 N.Y.S.2d 896

Citing Cases

People v. Mitchell

The issue for immediate resolution is whether defendant has a remedy, either in anticipation of appeal (as in…

People v. Marasa

We previously held this case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to Monroe County Court to determine…