People v. Ciborowski
| Decision Date | 06 February 2003 |
| Citation | 755 N.Y.S.2d 113,302 A.D.2d 620 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ROBERT A. CIBOROWSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In December 1996, a 36-count indictment was filed charging defendant with criminal contempt in the first degree, 17 counts of criminal contempt in the second degree and 17 counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree stemming from his violation of an order of protection directing him to refrain from contacting his former psychology professor.[1] Defendant had been calling the professor at her office at a community college, making obscene statements to her.
Prior to trial, County Court ordered a psychiatric examination of defendant and conducted a hearing pursuant to CPL article 730 to determine defendant's competency to stand trial. Following the hearing, at which two psychiatrists testified, County Court concluded that defendant was competent. Except for court appearances, defendant remained in the care of the Rochester Psychiatric Center, to which he had been committed following his preliminary hearing.[2] Following the trial, defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree and seven counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree. County Court sentenced him to 1 1/3 to 4 years' imprisonment on the contempt conviction and seven concurrent terms of one year in jail on the harassment convictions. Thereafter, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the grounds that his counsel was ineffective and he was denied due process of law. The court denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and, by permission, from the order denying his posttrial motion.
Initially, defendant contends that it was error for County Court to find him competent to stand trial. "A defendant is considered incapacitated for the purpose of standing trial if `as a result of mental disease or defect [he or she] lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him [or her] or to assist in his [or her] own defense'" (People v Shiffer, 256 AD2d 818, 818, lv denied 93 NY2d 878, quoting CPL 730.10 [1]). At the competency hearing, County Court heard the testimony of two psychiatrists who had examined defendant. Both psychiatrists agreed that defendant suffered from a delusional disorder, but that he had a factual understanding of the charges against him and the logistics of the judicial process, and he would be able to rationally assist in his defense. The testimony indicated that as long as defendant continued with his antipsychotic medication, he was competent to stand trial. Nowhere in the record is there any indication that defendant was not taking his medication at the time of the CPL article 730 hearing or at the time of trial. Based upon the uncontroverted evidence, the People sustained their burden of proving that defendant was not an incapacitated person within the meaning of CPL 730.10 (see People v Wood, 251 AD2d 521, 521, lv denied 92 NY2d 1041).
Defendant next contends that County Court improperly accepted his waiver of the insanity defense. At the conclusion of the CPL article 730 hearing, the court asked defendant whether he understood the potential consequences of either raising or waiving the insanity defense, to which defendant responded in the affirmative. Upon further inquiry, defendant stated that he did not wish to raise such a defense. Defendant's attorney indicated that he had previously discussed this issue with defendant and defendant had been consistent in his desire not to raise an insanity defense. Since defendant was competent to stand trial, he was likewise competent to make decisions regarding his defense (see generally People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17-18; People v Rodney, 245 AD2d 394, 395, lv denied 91 NY2d 929). The court fully informed defendant of his right to raise the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect and defendant knowingly chose not to assert such a defense. Since the court is without the jurisdiction to, sua sponte, instruct the jury on an affirmative defense or force a defendant to raise such a defense (see People v Bradley, 88 NY2d 901, 902, 904; People v DeGina, 72 NY2d 768, 776), we find that County Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Terry
...Court in finding defendant fit to stand trial ( see People v. Dewey, 18 A.D.3d 894, 895, 795 N.Y.S.2d 111 [2005]; People v. Ciborowski, 302 A.D.2d 620, 621–622, 755 N.Y.S.2d 113 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 389, 796 N.E.2d 481 [2003]; [926 N.Y.S.2d 218] People v. Campbell......
-
People v. Brewer
...to, sua sponte, instruct the jury on an affirmative defense or force a defendant to raise such a defense” ( People v. Ciborowski, 302 A.D.2d 620, 622, 755 N.Y.S.2d 113,lv. denied100 N.Y.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 389, 796 N.E.2d 481). Where, as here, the defendant has repeatedly advanced only a d......
-
Musaid v. Kirkpatrick
... ... (2T 28.) As he ... approached the subway station at 135th Street, he heard ... people running, but he had headphones in and was listening to ... music, so he minded his business, entered the subway, and ... continued to ... the consequences of his decision to abandon an insanity ... defense.” People v. Ciborowski , 302 A.D.2d ... 620, 622, 755 N.Y.S.2d 113, 115 (3d Dep't 2003); ... People v. Morton , 173 A.D.2d 1081, 1085, 570 ... N.Y.S.2d ... ...
-
People v. Mox
...as “defendant was competent to stand trial, he was likewise competent to make decisions regarding his defense” ( People v. Ciborowski, 302 A.D.2d 620, 622, 755 N.Y.S.2d 113, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 389, 796 N.E.2d 481), and the court therefore properly accepted defendant's w......