People v. Armlin

• Decision Date: 10 November 1982
• Citation: 456 N.Y.S.2d 533,90 A.D.2d 880
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ervun L. ARMLIN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 533

456 N.Y.S.2d 533

90 A.D.2d 880

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ervun L. ARMLIN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Nov. 10, 1982.

Jeffrey J. Clemente, Gloversville, for appellant.

William H. Gritsavage, Fulton County Dist. Atty., Johnstown, for respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and SWEENEY MAIN, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Fulton County, entered October 7, 1981, which denied, without a hearing, defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crime of rape in the first degree.

A judgment was rendered in Fulton County Court on March 5, 1973 convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the first degree. This court's affirmance of that judgment (43 A.D.2d 782, 350 N.Y.S.2d 795) was modified by the Court of Appeals and the matter remitted to the Fulton County Court "for a proper determination of defendant's mental capacity at the time of sentencing; and if this is found favorably to the People, the order should be affirmed (see People v. Hudson, 19 N.Y.2d 137 [, 278 N.Y.S.2d 593, 225 N.E.2d 193] )" (37 N.Y.2d 167, 173, 371 N.Y.S.2d 691, 332 N.E.2d 870). The basis for the action taken by the Court of Appeals was defendant's examination by only one qualified psychiatrist, instead of the statutorily required two (CPL 730.20, subd. 1), following the initiation of proceedings pursuant to CPL article 730 by order of the trial court.

Upon remittal, the trial court was unsuccessful in its attempt to comply with the directive issued by the Court of Appeals. The reason for this failure, as expressed in the reports of two psychiatrists who had been directed to examine defendant, was the inability of psychiatrists examining defendant during 1975 and 1976 to express any opinion regarding defendant's mental capacity at the time he was originally sentenced in 1973. Feeling that it would be pointless to subject defendant to further psychiatric examination, the People joined in a motion made by defense counsel to vacate the judgment of conviction. The trial court granted the motion to vacate and the case was again placed on the calendar for trial de novo.

A new order directing psychiatric examinations pursuant to CPL article 730 into defendant's capacity to stand trial was entered. Both psychiatrists who examined defendant found him mentally competent to stand trial. Following the denial of his motion to suppress certain statements that he had made, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of first degree rape in full satisfaction of the five-count indictment. In accepting the plea, the trial court stated that it found defendant to be "alert and intelligent", capable of "understand[ing] the nature of the charges" and "the consequences of a guilty plea". Defendant received an indeterminate sentence having a 10-year maximum on March 15, 1977 from which he did not appeal.

Four years later, on May 13, 1981, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his conviction. The basis for the motion was defendant's contention that his constitutional rights had been denied in that he was incapable of understanding or participating in the proceedings which resulted in the judgment by reason of mental disease or defect (CPL 440.10, subd. 1, pars. [e], [h] ). The trial court denied the motion and permission to appeal was granted by a Justice of this court.

When the Court of Appeals remitted the initial proceeding to the trial court for a hearing pursuant to People v. Hudson, 19 N.Y.2d 137, 278 N.Y.S.2d 593, 225 N.E.2d 193, cert. den. 398 U.S. 944, 90 S.Ct. 1852, 26 L.Ed.2d 281, an attempt was made to avoid a retrial and preserve those proceedings already conducted. Had the hearing into defendant's mental capacity at the time of sentencing shown that he was competent to understand and participate in the proceedings, the judgment of conviction based upon defendant's plea would have remained...