People v. Perrotti

• Decision Date: 14 January 1999
• Citation: 685 N.Y.S.2d 116
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 252 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony M. PERROTTI, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 116

685 N.Y.S.2d 116

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 252

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony M. PERROTTI, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Jan. 14, 1999.

David E. Rook, Slingerlands, for appellant.

Sol Greenberg, District Attorney (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, III, YESAWICH, Jr., PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ.

YESAWICH, Jr., J.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), entered March 7, 1996, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of two counts of the crime of assault in the first degree, after a hearing.

As the result of an incident in which he shot his sister-in-law and beat his wife about the head with a shotgun and a ceramic crock pot, defendant was charged with attempted murder, burglary and assault (two counts each). He ultimately pleaded guilty to two counts of assault in the first degree and was sentenced, in accordance with a plea bargain, to consecutive sentences aggregating to a total of 8 1/3 to 25 years' imprisonment. ¹ On direct appeal, this court concluded that defendant's plea was entered "knowingly and voluntarily with the assistance of competent counsel", and we affirmed the conviction (153 A.D.2d 992, 545 N.Y.S.2d 436, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 774, 551 N.Y.S.2d 916, 551 N.E.2d 117).

Defendant subsequently moved, pursuant to CPL 440.10, to vacate the judgment of conviction on the grounds that he had been unable to comprehend the proceedings, or to assist counsel in mounting a defense, when his plea was entered; that County Court had not followed the proper procedures for assessing his competence, as mandated by CPL article 730; and that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. The motion was denied, after a hearing, and this court granted defendant permission to appeal.

We affirm. In support of his motion, defendant argued, in essence, that once it was brought to County Court's attention, during his arraignment that a psychiatric examination had been ordered (apparently in the course of an earlier bail hearing, before a different Judge), the court had an obligation to follow the procedures set forth at CPL 730.20 before conducting further proceedings or permitting defendant to enter a guilty plea (see, People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 371 N.Y.S.2d 691, 332 N.E.2d 870). Defendant has not, however, demonstrated that the initial examination was prompted by any doubt as to his legal competency to stand trial, or was even intended to assess his abilities in that regard.

Nor does the mere fact that a psychological or psychiatric examination has been ordered, for an undisclosed reason--as was the case here--necessarily constitute " 'reasonable grounds' for believing that the defendant is incapable of preparing a defense or of understanding the proceedings or the charges against him" (People v. Dover, 227 A.D.2d 804, 805, 642 N.Y.S.2d 438, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 984, 649 N.Y.S.2d 390, 672 N.E.2d 616, quoting People v. Simmons, 182 A.D.2d 1018, 1019, 583 N.Y.S.2d 46), so as to mandate a hearing on the issue (see, People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878, 880, 638 N.Y.S.2d 942, 662 N.E.2d 260). It is noteworthy that the psychiatric reports available to County Court when defendant entered his plea indicated that his mental status was "normal", his speech and thought processes were "well organized", and while his insight and judgment were fair or poor, there was "[n]o evidence of thought disorder". One doctor noted, in a report dated just eight days prior to defendant's guilty plea, that "he was aware of the circumstances leading to his arrest and the circumstances that were to follow". While this report concludes with the observation that defendant "probably would require some psychiatric intervention to * * * make an adequate adjustment to a structured environment", a recommendation that psychiatric treatment be pursued is not necessarily indicative of incompetence (see, People v. Zochowski, 16 A.D.2d 669, 670, 226 N.Y.S.2d 817, cert. denied 373 U.S. 926, 83 S.Ct. 1529, 10 L.Ed.2d 425; cf., People v. Tortorici, 249 A.D.2d 588, 589-590, 671 N.Y.S.2d 162, 164, lv. granted 91 N.Y.2d 1015, 676 N.Y.S.2d 143, 698 N.E.2d 972). The...