People v. Bradt
Decision Date | 10 July 1980 |
Citation | 430 N.Y.S.2d 742,77 A.D.2d 795 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Horace BRADT, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
George T. Dunn, Syracuse by Eric Alderman, Syracuse, for appellant.
Richard Hennessy, Syracuse by Gail N. Uebelhoer, Syracuse, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P. J., and CARDAMONE, SCHNEPP, DOERR and WITMER, JJ.
Following a fire at 105 Taylor Street in the City of Syracuse on October 22, 1978, defendant voluntarily appeared at the Hutchings Psychiatric Center where shortly thereafter he was placed under arrest for arson in the second degree. Upon arraignment in Syracuse City Court, it was ordered that he be examined by two psychiatrists pursuant to article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Each doctor conducted a 40-minute interview with defendant and thereafter each signed a prepared form report which stated that defendant did not then "as a result of mental disease or defect lack capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense." Neither report contained any further explanation of the conduct of the examination or of the findings (see People v. Candella, 49 A.D.2d 800, 373 N.Y.S.2d 240).
Defendant was indicted for arson in the third degree on December 28, 1978 and, without further psychiatric examination or a hearing to determine his capacity, he entered a plea of guilty on January 10, 1979 to a reduced charge of arson in the fourth degree. On appeal, defendant urges that the court should not have taken his guilty plea in the absence of a capacity hearing conducted pursuant to section 730.30 (subd. 2) of the Criminal Procedure Law. We agree.
One week prior to the entry of defendant's guilty plea, he had pled not guilty and had filed notice of an insanity defense. The district attorney justified his recommendation for the reduced plea on the basis that defendant's long history of treatment for mental illness raised a question "as to the ability of the defendant to perform the requisite intent required to prove the charge in the indictment". The court also expressed concern about defendant's mental condition. In accepting defendant's plea, the judge stated that he had spoken with three named people who were active in the mental health field and who were familiar with defendant's case, and that as a result of those conversations he "was satisfied * * * (that defendant) operates at a functional level * * * understands what h...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Silverstein v. Henderson
...on its own motion when, as here, the examining psychiatrists disagree on the defendant's competence. See also People v. Bradt, 77 A.D.2d 795, 430 N.Y.S.2d 742 (1980) (error not to order hearing where reports finding defendant competent were conclusory and where evidence suggested incompeten......