Opinion
2012-12-28
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cynthia MOORE, also known as Cynthia Y. Moore, also known as Cynthia A. Moore, Defendant–Appellant.
Keliann M. Elniski, Orchard Park, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
Keliann M. Elniski, Orchard Park, for Defendant–Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1] ). After defendant pleaded guilty but before she was sentenced, she suffered a traumatic brain injury that allegedly impacted her cognitive abilities. Upon defense counsel's request, County Court issued an order of examination pursuant to CPL article 730 to determine defendant's competency. The two examination reports that were prepared were inconclusive on the issue of defendant's competency, however, and the court ordered that a third examination be conducted. The third examination was never completed. Instead, upon defense counsel's request, the matter proceeded to sentencing, where defense counsel acknowledged that defendant was being sentenced without conclusive proof of her competence.
We agree with defendant that the court abused its discretion in failing sua sponte to order a competency hearing to determine whether defendant was fit to proceed at the time of sentencing ( see People v. Garrasi, 302 A.D.2d 981, 983, 754 N.Y.S.2d 799,lv. denied100 N.Y.2d 538, 763 N.Y.S.2d 4, 793 N.E.2d 418;see also People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 171–172, 371 N.Y.S.2d 691, 332 N.E.2d 870;People v. Bangert, 22 N.Y.2d 799, 800, 292 N.Y.S.2d 900, 239 N.E.2d 644;see generally People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 765–766, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87,cert. denied528 U.S. 834, 120 S.Ct. 94, 145 L.Ed.2d 80). Although a defendant is presumed to be competent ( see Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d at 765, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87) and “[t]he determination of whether to order a competency hearing lies within the sound discretion of the ... court” ( id. at 766, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87;see People v. Hawkins, 70 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 894 N.Y.S.2d 686,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 888, 903 N.Y.S.2d 776, 929 N.E.2d 1011), “[a] court may not ... sentence a defendant who is incompetent” ( People v. Rojas, 43 A.D.3d 413, 414, 840 N.Y.S.2d 152). Moreover, “[t]he court has ‘the authority, and the continuing obligation, to address ... evidence [of incompetence] at any time it believe[s] circumstances warrant[ ] a hearing’ ” ( Garrasi, 302 A.D.2d at 983, 754 N.Y.S.2d 799, quoting People v. Williams, 85 N.Y.2d 945, 948, 626 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 650 N.E.2d 849). Here, in light of the inconclusive nature of the competency examination reports, defense counsel's acknowledgment that competency had not been determined ( cf. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d at 767, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87), and the absence of any indication in the record that the court had the opportunity to interact with and observe defendant prior to sentencing in order to assess her capacity ( cf. People v. Cipollina, 94 A.D.3d 1549, 1550, 943 N.Y.S.2d 710,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 971, 950 N.Y.S.2d 354, 973 N.E.2d 764;People v. Chicherchia, 86 A.D.3d 953, 954, 926 N.Y.S.2d 795,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 952, 936 N.Y.S.2d 78, 959 N.E.2d 1027), we conclude that the court erred in sentencing defendant without first ordering a competency hearing.
We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court to resentence defendant. “If the court is ‘of the opinion that the defendant may be an incapacitated person’ at that time (CPL 730.30[1] ), it shall order a competency hearing before imposing sentence” ( Garrasi, 302 A.D.2d at 983, 754 N.Y.S.2d 799). In view of our determination, we do not address defendant's remaining contention concerning defense counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in failing to object at sentencing in the absence of an unequivocal competency determination.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Genesee County Court for resentencing.