From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1990
162 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 4, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

Prior to the commencement of the Sandoval and Wade hearings, defense counsel informed the court that he was having a communication problem with the defendant who refused to speak with him. After jury selection had commenced, the court was informed that the defendant had slashed his wrists, the wounds were superficial and that the defendant was in an "emotional condition". Rather than ordering a competency examination pursuant to CPL article 730, the court adjourned the trial for one day and arranged to have the defendant examined by a psychiatrist.

After the examination, the court noted for the record that it was the psychiatrist's opinion that the defendant was competent to stand trial. The court therefore directed that the trial proceed. Defense counsel's communication problems with the defendant continued throughout the trial.

Once the trial court had made a threshold determination that the defendant's conduct warranted an examination, it should have strictly followed the competency procedures mandated by CPL 730.20 (1). The failure to comply with the statute deprived the defendant of the right to a full and fair determination of his mental capacity to stand trial (see, People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167; People v. Mullins, 137 A.D.2d 227; People v. Mulholland, 129 A.D.2d 857).

We find that reconstruction of the defendant's mental capacity to stand trial is not possible in this case (cf., People v Arnold, 113 A.D.2d 101, 107). Therefore, we have reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial (see, People v. Peterson, 40 N.Y.2d 1014).

As to the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that the defendant failed to show that he was denied meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1990
162 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Torres

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE TORRES, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 4, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

People v. Dacosta

However, the court proceeded to trial without having conducted the hearing, following which it found…

People v. Hussari

Here, at the reconstruction hearing ordered by this Court ( People v. Hussari, 5 AD3d 697), the People…