Opinion
No. 2016QN052633.
02-28-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Matthew PIERCE, Defendant.
The Legal Aid Society, (Susan Crile, Esq., of Counsel), (Bryan Coakley, Esq., of Counsel), for the Defendant. Richard Brown, District Attorney, Queens County, (Scott Kessler, Esq., of Counsel), (Kathryn Schulz, Esq., of Counsel), for the People.
The Legal Aid Society, (Susan Crile, Esq., of Counsel), (Bryan Coakley, Esq., of Counsel), for the Defendant.
Richard Brown, District Attorney, Queens County, (Scott Kessler, Esq., of Counsel), (Kathryn Schulz, Esq., of Counsel), for the People.
JOHN F. ZOLL, J.
A hearing to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial was held before me on the two above referenced docket numbers on January 26, 2017 in Part JP–1. Along with the testimony of Dr. Alan Perry, Ph.D. and Dr. Cheryl Paradis, Ph.D., the Court has examined (1) the mental health records of the defendant provided by defenses counsel which detail, inter alia, a history of bi-polar disorder, (2) a Forensic Psychological Report prepared by Dr. Fiona Radcliffe, Ph.D., dated 12/6/16, (3) an intake report by the CIRT Program/Fortune Society, (4) 51 recorded telephone calls from the defendant to his mother and another unidentified female from Rikers Island and the Court's observations of the Defendant in court on the day of the hearing. Prior to the hearing, Judge Armstrong issued a decision with regard to the applicable burden of persuasion at a competency hearing. In that decision dated January 11, 2017, Judge Armstrong concluded that once the defendant has introduced the court ordered reports of the 730 examination, indicating the defendant is not fit to proceed, the People have the burden proving that the defendant is not an incapacitated person by a preponderance of the evidence.
Approximately 150 pages.
Both Dr. Perry and Dr. Paradis testified that they relied in part on Dr. Radcliff's evaluation in coming to their conclusions concerning the defendant's capacity to proceed.
The report is unsigned by Anna DeLeon, MPA and Elizabeth Christy, CASAC. However, the Court deems this to be a true and accurate report of Mr. Pierce's intake evaluation on 10/4/16.
The People provided 56 recorded telephone calls but it appears as though only 51 of those calls are of the defendant to this mother and another unidentified female, who is not the complaining witness, Shalaya Reid.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Court has reviewed the testimony of Dr. Alan Perry, Ph.D. and Dr. Cheryl Paradis, Ph.D., both of whom examined the defendant pursuant to CPL Article 730 prior to this hearing and testified at the hearing.
Dr. Alan Perry, Ph.D.
Dr. Alan Perry is employed by the Kings County Hospital Forensic and Psychiatry Service, is a board-certified psychologist and has conducted thousands of 730 reports over the course of 44 years. Dr. Perry examined the Defendant on December 12, 2016 for approximately 30–45 minutes at the Queens Psychiatric Clinic. Dr. Perry found the Defendant to be confrontational, irritable and angry and therefore difficult to work with and that this all stemmed from mental illness. Dr. Perry testified that the Defendant stated during the interview that he was cold at Rikers Island and tired. Dr. Perry further testified that the Defendant likely suffered from bi-polar disorder, a disorder that manifests itself in the latter teens. Dr. Perry was also able to review an interview conducted by TASC, after his examination, and stated that the interview merely confirmed his belief that the Defendant was bipolar. As a result, he was "someone not accessible to counsel." (Hearing Minutes, p. 54.) As a result, the Defendant "closes things out" and is not receptive to any information his attorneys provide. (Hearing Minutes, p. 19, p. 47.) His anger, his dysphoria, his irritability "does not permit him to assess his legal options in an appropriate way." (Id ) and that his anger, inherent to his mental illness, prevents him from hearing and listening and processing. (Hearing Minutes, p. 60.) Dr. Perry testified that the Defendant had the ability to be manipulative, but was not a malingerer. (Hearing Minutes, p. 25.) He also testified that an individual could suffer from bipolar disorder induced by the stress of trial, ADHD, and alcohol and marijuana abuse and still be fit to proceed. (Hearing Minutes, p. 35). Dr. Perry also stated that an individual could be unfit to proceed to trial, but be able to proceed in connection with a plea. (Hearing Minutes, p. 36). He later testified that bipolar individuals are really interesting, because something as simple as "hearing something he didn't want to hear" can be a triggering factor despite the individual being stable on medication. (Hearing Minutes, p. 38–39.)
Dr. Perry testified that the Defendant did apologize for his behavior and anger. (Hearing Minutes, p. 49.) Dr. Perry also stated that, after reviewing the phone calls provided by the District Attorney's office, the Defendant's discussion regarding a "program" could indicate the Defendant's ability to understand "that part of a disposition." (Hearing Minutes, p. 51.) Dr. Perry also testified that the Defendant "understood the roles of everyone in the courtroom." (Hearing Minutes, p. 51). Dr. Perry was aware the Defendant had other criminal matters, but did not know that the Defendant's counsel, Ms. Susan Crile and Mr. Bryan Coakley, were representing him on other cases. (Hearing Minutes, p. 54–55.)
Dr. Perry also had the opportunity to review recordings between the defendant and a girlfriend and was able to note the difference in tone. Dr. Perry surmised that much of the Defendant's irritability stemmed from stress. (Hearing Minutes, p. 22.) Additionally, Dr. Perry found that the Defendant's incapacity is "most significantly tied into the fact that he loses his ability to make rational decisions" in situations that the Defendant finds "stressful." (Hearing Minutes, p. 44.) However, Dr. Perry also testified that the Defendant does "understand that he could go to trial or take a plea." (Hearing Minutes, p. 57.) He further testified that the Defendant appeared "interested" regarding his court case and that "he wanted to go to trial." (Hearing Minutes, p. 57.) Dr. Perry testified that the Defendant did understand the confidentiality waiver as well as the orders of protection. (Hearing Minutes, pg. 24.)
Dr. Cheryl Paradis
The People also presented Dr. Cheryl Paradis, Ph.D. as a witness. Dr. Paradis is employed by the Kings County Hospital as a psychologist. Dr. Paradis interview with the Defendant lasted between 20–30 minutes, and was conducted at the same time Dr. Perry held his interview. (Hearing Minutes, p. 69, 76.)
Dr. Paradis reported the Defendant's demeanor to be agitated, hostile, irritated and somewhat threatening throughout the course of the interview. (Hearing Minutes, p. 69–70.) The Defendant soon apologized for his behavior, and told Dr. Paradis that it was due to the temperature at Rikers Island. (Hearing Minutes, p. 71.) Dr. Paradis testified that the Defendant did understand who his attorney was, recognized his attorneys, and understood that their role was to help him, but did not see any evidence that he would be able to "understand all his alternatives." (Hearing Minutes, p. 73.) Dr. Paradis also observed that the Defendant became agitated when he had to answer questions regarding his son, and noted that "these are questions that would not typically cause people to get agitated." (Hearing Minutes, p. 74.) His thinking was "tangential and disorganized" and he seemed "quite suspicious of us ... particular of his attorney." (Id.) Dr. Paradis further testified that his "affect, his mood, was so intense and so angry and it was not appropriate to the situation." (Id.) Dr. Paradis stated that the Defendant also made statements indicative of a psychiatric illness, where his answers "had nothing to do with the question that we asked." (Hearing Minutes, p. 76.)
Dr. Paradis was also asked to provide insight into some of the statements the Defendant made in connection with his criminal matter. Dr. Paradis testified that the Defendant's characterization of the "bullshit charges" against him meant that he actually did not have a full understanding regarding the seriousness of the charges. (Hearing Minutes, p. 80.) Dr. Paradis also testified that the Defendant's behavior did not align with his desire to do a program, which led Dr. Paradis to conclude that he was unable to control his emotions. (Hearing Minutes, p. 81.)
Dr. Paradis testified that while she was aware of the Defendant's other criminal case, she only asked questions regarding the instant docket to the extent that she could, given the Defendant's irritability. (Hearing Minutes, p. 85 97–98.) Dr. Paradis also testified that for defendants who have an untreated psychiatric illness, changing attorneys does not sometimes resolve anger issues. (Hearing Minutes, p. 86.) Dr. Paradis also stated that it is possible to have a serious mental illness and be competent, although less so if the defendant is not on medication and is bipolar as those symptoms interfere directly with the inability to work with counsel. (Hearing Minutes, p. 89.) Dr. Paradis also agreed with Dr. Perry in that the Defendant was not malingering, and not exaggerating symptoms. (Hearing Minutes, p. 94.) Dr. Paradis' ultimate diagnosis of the Defendant was that of an unspecified depressive disorder. (Hearing Minutes, p. 105.)
In sum, both doctors found that the defendant was an incapacitated person and unfit to cooperate with his attorneys and make rational decisions about his two criminal cases, one of which is in a sentencing/compliance stage and the other which is still a pending unresolved matter. They both testified that the defendant suffers from a severe mood disorder and has a history bi-polar disorder which manifests itself most notably in severe anger and irritability towards others and particularly his attorneys, Ms. Susan Crile and Mr. Brian Coakley. The degree of anger by the defendant renders him incapable of making rational decisions concerning his two cases.
Medical Records Provided by Defense Counsel
Defense counsel provided the Court with the Defendant's medical records which affirm the Defendant's mental illness. The Defendant was deemed eligible for NYC supportive housing, in part due to his having a serious mental illness, and was required to undergo medical treatment for medical conditions. (Human Resources Administration, Customized Assistance Services; housing application. ) The attached housing application also listed his psychiatric disorders as schizoaffective disorder.
Lutheran Family Health Center psych evaluation, 11/25/2013; HELP/PSI referral letter, 04/19/2013; Saint John's Episcopal Hospital psych admittance information, 10/11/11–10/13/11.
The Defendant's most recent Residential Intake Interview also details his psychiatric and medical diagnoses as schizoaffective disorder and self-reported bipolar disorder. In the Risk Assessment portion of the application, which details certain risk factors exhibited by the client, the Defendant denied, among other things, having a history of criminal activity, aggressive and/or threatening behavior, a high level of anxiety and/or distress. He did report having difficulty controlling his temper, stating that he has outburst but does not break things. In the Mental Status portion of the application, the Defendant's clothing and grooming appeared appropriate, he was cooperative with the interviewer and remained alert. His tone was normal, his speech was rate was normal, and he was clear, His thought process appeared logical and goal-oriented. No disorders were evident regarding his thought content and perception, his insight appeared good and his judgment, sound.
The records also include a letter written and signed by Cara Turner, LMSW, dated 1/22/14 recommending the Defendant for placement in assigned housing. Cara Turner noted that the Defendant had a history of "violent and aggressive behavior" but that his medication was helping him and that he is capable of advocating for himself.
The Defendant was briefly hospitalized in August 2016 for an incident involving him running in and out of traffic. The attending physician, Mariam Garuba, MD noted that he has decompensated with significant mood lability. He also mentioned that his wife had an order of protection against him, that he will not violate the order but that if they get a divorce, he will take his son.
Dr. Fiona A. Radcliffe, Ph.D. Forensic Psychological Report
Dr. Radcliffe's report, which was relied upon by both Dr. Perry and Dr. Paradis during their 730 evaluation, detailed the Defendant's social, education/work, medical, substance use, psychiatric and legal history. Dr. Radcliffe conducted two interviews with the Defendant, the first of which ended abruptly due to the Defendant's angry outbursts. Both interviews took place after the Defendant plead guilty to a conditional plea that mandated the CIRT program. Dr. Radcliffe noted that the Defendant was aware of his current charges and their specifics, and was aware that he had plead guilty, but was unable to understand why he accepted the offer in the first place given his total opposition to the idea at the time of the interview. He became distressed when talking about his son and the pending family court case. When asked if he would consider a jail sentence instead of a drug rehabilitation program, he stated that he wanted to take the case to trial as the "charges are fraudulent anyway." The report further details that for most of the interview, he was agitated and upset, although by the end of the interview, he was in a more positive mood as Dr. Radcliffe was able to engage him on topics that had made him angrier earlier on in the interview.
Dr. Radcliffe concluded that the Defendant suffers from a mood disorder, complicated by ongoing substance use. In his current state, he does not appear accessible to counsel and does not appear capable of maintaining appropriate courtroom demeanor.
CIRT/Fortune Society Intake Letter
The unsigned letter provided by The Fortune Society on behalf of the Senior Director, Anna DeLeon stated that the Defendant was mandated to the CIRT program on 9/29/2016. He was unable to complete the intake process at least five times due to his anger. He repeatedly became angry and agitated when asked to attend substance abuse programs, sign consent forms and other forms of paperwork, and his increasing hostility caused him to be escorted out of the facility. The Defendant was subsequently discharged as a result of his behavior and unwillingness to adhere to treatment recommendations.
Rikers Island Recorded Phone Calls
The People also submitted recorded phone call of the Defendant from Rikers Island. At least 48 of the 56 phone calls provided by the People were of the Defendant and his mother. A substantial amount of those phone calls were of the Defendant speaking to his mother about his attorney, Ms. Susan Crile. During those phone calls, the Defendant repeatedly asked that his mother contact Ms. Crile, on both her office number and cell phone, regarding his case.
For example, on December 3, 2016, the Defendant told his mother to reach out to Ms. Crile and to tell her to send him to Elmhurst Hospital. On that same date, during another phone call, the Defendant asked his mother to contact Ms. Crile so that she could find out the date and time of his 730 evaluation. He also asked his mother to tell Ms. Crile to get him "time served." During this particular phone call, he told his mother that he was unhappy with Ms. Crile as his attorney and did not believe that she was working in his best interests. He said she was appointed by the state, and therefore did not trust her. He also said that if she was unable to get him time served, she should ask the judge for 30 days, with the understanding that he would only have to do 20 days.
On December 7, 2016, the Defendant had another extensive conversation with his mother discussing a potential release date. He told his mother that he did not think he would be found unfit, stating that he is "not crazy, not insane, not angry." He expressed extreme unhappiness with his attorney, Ms. Crile, and did not understand why he could not "cop out to a dis con." He continued to state that he is not mentally ill, and was upset that his mother was telling Ms. Crile information about his mental health history because that "messes me up in family court." He told his mother to stop telling "his attorney" certain things about his mental capacity because he knew that information would be used by his wife in family court. He also mentioned that he again wanted time served as a sentence and/or 30 days, otherwise he would ask that Ms. Crile be removed from the case. He said he wanted to fight the charges until they were dismissed, and felt that Ms. Crile did not have his best interests at heart.
On December 9, 2017, in a conversation with his mother, he continued to state that Ms. Crile did not have his best interests in mind. He said he did not want to have to stay at the hospital, which would occur if he was found unfit. He further stated, "If I was unfit, how would I know what to do to get her off my case" in reference to getting Ms. Crile removed as his attorney. He also mentioned wanting to perhaps do a program.
On December 15, 2017, in a conversation with his mother, the Defendant spoke about the false accusations lodged against him by the complaining witness. He said that all his attorney has to do is check his e-mails to show that he never contacted his wife and therefore violating the order of protection. He mentioned that he did not want to discuss the case any further as he knew his calls were being recorded.
On December 18, 2016, in a conversation with his mother, he expressed displeasure with the judge, the Supervising ADA and DA due to an appearance in court where it became clear to the Defendant that the reason he had yet to be released was because the ADA expressed issues concerning his competency. He expressed a desire to sue all three, and told his mother he wanted his "regular judge" and Bryan Coakley to be present at the next court date so that they may advocate on his behalf.
On December 20, 2016, in a conversation with his mother, he requested that his mother contact Ms. Crile to find out why his case had been adjourned, and why he didn't get the opportunity to see the judge. During his phone call with his mother on December 21, 2016, his mother told him that the District Attorney wanted to have a hearing regarding the results of his 730 report to which he stated that "I'm gonna be even nastier with that person." He also told his mother to contact Ms. Crile to find out when he would be evaluated by the DA's psychiatrist, and if not, that she should put in a "motion for bail" or to have the case advanced so that he could be released. He also told his mother that if Ms. Crile did not do any of those tasks, he would go to the law library himself to appeal the decision.
On December 22, 2016, in a conversation with his mother, the Defendant told his mother to ask Ms. Crile if there was any other documentation she required that would show his history of mental illness. He also told his mother the other institutions that he underwent treatment so that Ms. Crile could obtain the necessary information from those facilities.
On December 24, 2017, in a conversation with an unidentified female, the Defendant explained the reason why he was in jail to a woman who had reached out to him on the date he had been remanded. He mentioned that the allegations were false, and that all the allegations against him were hearsay. These same details were said to another unidentified person to which he placed a phone call on December 24, 2017.
On December 26, 2017, the Defendant had another extensive conversation with his mother regarding the progress of his criminal case. Specifically, he told his mother to tell his attorney, Ms. Crile, not to mention to the judge any more evidence regarding his mental health history if the judge is "going to dismiss it anyway." He also told his mother to tell Ms. Crile that if he did not see her again in court, he would have her relieved and request an 18B attorney. He also stated that he wouldn't be in jail if he had a paid attorney. He mentioned that he would ask for a motion for an administrative judge, that he wanted to get released on his next court date, and that he wanted Mr. Goggins (an individual who had been working with the Defendant with regards to his housing) at court so that Mr. Goggins could escort him upon being released. The Defendant expressed his dissatisfaction with Ms. Crile as his attorney, saying that she was dragging her feet and that he would go to the law library to fill out the necessary paperwork to have her removed as his counsel. He also told his mother that she should ensure that Mr. Bryan Coakley was present at his next court date.
Defendant's In–Court Demeanor During Competency Hearing
On the date of the hearing, the defendant was produced in court for the hearing. This Court had no previous knowledge or familiarity with the defendant or his behavior. Moreover, it had no familiarity with any of the prior proceedings on either docket. The Court had been advised by court personnel prior to his coming into court that the defendant "could be a problem" and "can be violent." The Defendant remained front-handcuffed when he was brought into court and remained so during the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the Court spoke directly to the defendant and asked him how was "feeling today." He responded that he was tired but otherwise "ok." The Court asked him to conduct himself "like a gentleman" and "he would be treated respectfully as well by the court staff" and by the Court. He was further told that he would be allowed to say anything he wanted at the appropriate time. He acknowledged the Court's remarks.
The case was sent to Part JP–1 from AP–4 to conduct the hearing.
Throughout the hearing, the defendant conducted himself in an orderly and relatively calm manner, despite three separate occasions where he could be heard talking at the defense table without being asked any specific questions. The Court would not characterize these periods as ‘outbursts', although some of his speech could be characterized as very rapid and without reflection . The Court notes that much of the testimony provided by Dr. Perry and Dr. Paradis described the Defendant's mood disorder and volatile temper, yet the Defendant remained relatively calm during their testimony. When the Court spoke directly to the Defendant and told him that he had two excellent attorneys, Ms. Crile and Mr. Coakley, representing him and that they were working on his behalf, he responded that he "did not have any problem with Mr. Coakley or Ms. Crile." This statement is obviously different from his statements on the phone with his mother. The testimony of Dr. Perry lasted almost two hours. After Dr. Perry's testimony was concluded, the Court again spoke directly to Mr. Pierce and asked him what time he woke up that day and if he was either tired and/or hungry. He said he was tired and that he had brought a sandwich from the commissary with him to court. The Court asked him if he would like to "continue the hearing tomorrow" or "continue going today." The defendant stated he wanted to be present at the hearing. The Court clarified that he would always be present but wanted to know if he wanted to finish the hearing that day, essentially giving the defendant the choice whether to continue with the hearing or adjourn it until the next day. The Defendant said he was "okay" and the hearing continued. At the end of the hearing the defendant stated to the Court that he was mentally ill and needed to be in a hospital. Lastly, the Court asked the defendant if he was still cold at Rikers Island? He stated "not anymore he had just needed some warmer clothes," which he had received prior to the instant hearing.
Dr. Perry testified that these are common symptoms of irrational thought by a person with bi-polar mood disorder.
These statements were not under oath and were not on the record.
--------
DISCUSSION
The issue before the Court is whether the defendant is an incapacitated person, and as such, is unable to assist in his own defense. Criminal Procedure Law 730.10 defines incapacitated person as follows: "a defendant who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense." Where a defendant is found to be an "incapacitated person," the Court "must issue a final or temporary order of observation committing him or her to the custody of the commissioner for care and treatment" and "must dismiss the accusatory instrument" upon a final order of observation. (CPL 730 .40).
In determining whether the defendant is fit for trial, the key inquiry is "whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." ( People v. Phillips, 16 NY3d 510, 516 [2011].) Moreover, a "finding of trial competency is within the sound discretion of the trial court and involves a legal and not medical determination." (Phillips, at 517)(citing People v. Mendez, 1 NY3d 15, 20 [2003].) Because the trial court has the responsibility of assessing and weighing the evidence presented on the issue of the defendant's competency, the court may not only rely on the assertions made by defense counsel and medical conclusions, but may also consider factors that may "escape the record." (Phillips, at 517). Those factors include the personal observations by the court of the defendant. (Id. )
The Court finds that the People have met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is not an incapacitated person and is capable in assisting in his defense. The Court affords great deference to the examining doctors, Dr. Perry and Dr. Paradis and their conclusions. While the Court finds that the Defendant does suffer from a mood disorder that causes him to be extremely angry, confrontational and irritable, this Court finds that, based on the totality of the evidence presented at this hearing, this mood disorder does not render him incapacitated such that he is unable to assist in his own defense.
The Defendant demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the legal process and the roles of his attorneys. There is no doubt that the defendant suffers from a mood disorder that makes him very angry and, at times, interferes with his ability to think rationally. The Court further acknowledges that while there may be times that this anger could interfere with his ability to aid his attorneys, it is speculative to assume that this anger would be constant and overriding if his case went to trial. Dr. Perry testified that the defendant knows all of the aspects of his case. Dr. Perry testified that the defendant could be capable of taking a plea but felt that the "stress of a trial" could make him so angry that he would become irrational and not be able to make good decisions regarding his case.
However, an evaluation of competency is not designed to cater to the defendant's wants or needs at any given time. The Court does not agree with Dr. Perry's conclusion that the defendant is competent to take a plea that involves ‘time served’ because it is something he will agree to, but somehow becomes incapacitated and unable to cooperate with his attorneys if he does not get the disposition that he desires and as a result becomes angry. (See People v. Sullivan, 48 A.D.2d 398 [1st Dept 1975], appeal denied 39 N.Y.2d 903 [1976].) Indeed, a defendant's irrational refusal to cooperate with his attorney at various stages of the proceedings does not constitute incapacity. ( People v. McMillan, 212 A.D.2d 445, 446 [1st Dept 1995].) For instance, Dr. Radcliffe's report reflects that the Defendant was angry and upset at the beginning of their interview. However, towards the end of the interview, he was more positive and able to engage with Dr. Radcliffe on topics that had angered him at an earlier stage of the interview. During the 730 evaluation, the Defendant told Dr. Perry and Dr. Paradis that he was angry and "this was not going to be pleasant." He also told them that he had been very cold at Rikers Island, and that the temperature was a contributing factor to his anger. The Defendant's anger and irritability just because things are not going his way, does not necessarily render him incapacitated.
Dr. Paradis testified that the defendant understood all the roles involved in the legal process, but did not understand all of his alternatives. The Defendant's statements during his phone calls, however, clearly demonstrate that he is aware of his alternatives. The evidence reflects that the Defendant was able to provide his attorney with information regarding his mental history, directing his mother as to how the information could be procured, and where she could find the information in his apartment so that she could give it to his attorney. During one phone call, he told his mother that his attorney could go into his email to see that there were no e-mails that would show that he had violated the order of protection. He is aware of, and understands the role of both his attorneys, Ms. Susan Crile and Mr. Bryan Coakley, as well as the role of the District Attorney and the judge. He demonstrated the ability to strategize on his own behalf, telling his mother what to tell his attorney regarding his bail status and his desire to get another attorney. He was able to speak about his sentencing options, by requesting "time served" or doing the right amount of jail time such that he would be released. He understood that by moving forward with a 730 evaluation, and a possible finding of unfitness, would jeopardize his Family Court case with his wife regarding the custody of his son. Moreover, his request that Mr. Goggins and Mr. Bryan Coakley be present at certain court dates, demonstrated his understanding that those two individuals bettered his chances of possibly getting released.
Moreover, this Court had the opportunity to observe the Defendant's demeanor and speak with the Defendant directly regarding his general well-being. When asked by the Court if he if he was still cold at Rikers Island, he stated that this was no longer a concern and that he just needed warmer clothing. When asked by the Court to "keep everything under control", the Defendant replied that he understood. The Defendant is very interested in the progress of his case. The Defendant demonstrated the ability to follow the progress of the hearing, providing insight throughout the proceeding regarding his own statements and whether he wanted to continue with the hearing that day. It is not clear what his present feelings are towards his existing attorneys, Ms. Crile and Mr. Coakley, given his inconsistent statements on the recorded calls from Rikers Island and his statements in court. However, this Court finds that, in the instant case, the defendant's attitude towards his particular attorneys is an additional factor in determining his competence.
All of these factors, many taken from the Defendant's own words, demonstrate that the Defendant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Therefore, this Court finds that the Defendant is not incapacitated within the meaning of CPL 730.
The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision and order of the court.