From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Graham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued April 10, 2000.

May 15, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered May 29, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Kimberlianne Podlas and Harold V. Ferguson of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Karol B. Mangum of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency hearing is without merit (see, CPL 730.30; People v. Tertorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, cert denied U.S. 120 Sup Ct 94). The determination as to whether to order a competency hearing is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant is incapable of preparing a defense or of understanding the proceedings or the charges against him, then a hearing must be ordered (see, People v. Simmons, 182 A.D.2d 1018, 1019; People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 171). Otherwise, a "presumption of sanity" prevails (People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 459) which cannot be rebutted by a mere showing that the defendant has a history of mental illness (see, People v. Gelikkaya, supra; People v. Gensler, 72 N.Y.2d 239, 244, cert denied 488 U.S. 932; People v. Dover, 227 A.D.2d 804, 805).

Here, the defendant did not exhibit any delusional thinking during the trial. Rather, the defendant gave testimony in a rational manner, and understood the role of his attorney and the other participants at trial. Moreover, he was found by two psychiatrists to be fit to stand trial.

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, THOMPSON and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Graham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Graham

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. DARYL GRAHAM, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: May 15, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 336

Citing Cases

People v. Miller

We find these claims to be without merit. While a trial court may initiate inquiry into a defendant's…

People v. Garrasi

Where, as here, "the hearing court is presented with conflicting evidence of competency, great deference [is]…