A defendant found competent to stand trial has the ultimate authority, even over counsel's objection, to reject the use of a psychiatric defense ( see People v. Petrovich, 87 N.Y.2d 961, 963, 641 N.Y.S.2d 592, 664 N.E.2d 503;People v. Constas, 59 A.D.3d 729, 730, 875 N.Y.S.2d 103;People v. Ciborowski, 302 A.D.2d 620, 622, 755 N.Y.S.2d 113). The defendant, who was found competent to stand trial ( seeCPL 730.30[2]; People v. Pulecio, 237 A.D.2d 633, 633, 656 N.Y.S.2d 46), was consistent in his refusal to present an insanity defense. Moreover, the record indicates that he and his counsel, with whom he had a cooperative relationship, considered and discussed this issue extensively.
The defendant, who was found competent to stand trial, was consistent in his refusal to present such a defense. Once a defendant is found competent to stand trial, he has every right, even over counsel's objection, to reject the use of an insanity defense ( see People v Pulecio, 237 AD2d 633). Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Arevalo, 54 AD3d 380, 380-381; People v Adams, 12 AD3d 523). Defense counsel presented a reasonable defense, interposed appropriate objections, and effectively cross-examined witnesses ( see People v Smith, 12 AD3d 707; People v Adams, 12 AD3d 523). The defendant's contention that he was denied the right to be present during the trial and sentencing is without merit.
Decided May 24, 2004. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this court dated March 31, 1997 ( People v. Pulecio, 237 A.D.2d 633), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered June 19, 1990. Victor A. Pulecio, Dannemora, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court's determination that he was fit to proceed is supported by legally sufficient evidence at the competency hearing. The People met their burden of proof at that hearing through the expert testimony of two of the three psychiatric examiners who examined defendant (see People v. Ferguson, 248 A.D.2d 725, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 981; People v. Pulecio, 237 A.D.2d 633, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 862). Unlike the third psychiatric examiner, they found that defendant was able to assist in his own defense despite his mental illness.
The court properly determined, after a hearing, that the defendant was competent to stand trial ( see, CPL 730.10). The People sustained their burden of establishing the defendant's fitness through the expert testimony of two psychiatrists ( see, People v. Pulecio, 237 A.D.2d 633; People v. Vandemark, 225 A.D.2d 716, 717; People v. Supino, 202 A.D.2d 454; People v. Orama, 150 A.D.2d 505, 506; People v. Allen, 135 A.D.2d 823; People v. Breeden, 115 A.D.2d 484). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, neither the fact that the defense-retained psychiatrist disagreed with the conclusion of the two court-appointed experts, nor the fact that the defendant opted to reject a "black rage" insanity defense dictated a ruling that he was unfit for trial. As this Court has previously observed, "[w]here the hearing court is presented with conflicting evidence of competency, great deference [is] accorded its findings" ( People v. Gordon, 125 A.D.2d 587, 588; People v. Allen, supra, at 823; People v. Breeden, supra, at 484).