People v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 02 July 1990
• Citation: 557 N.Y.S.2d 168,163 A.D.2d 337
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Chris ROGERS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 168

557 N.Y.S.2d 168

163 A.D.2d 337

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Chris ROGERS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

July 2, 1990.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Hillard Wiese, of counsel), for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (John Castellano, of counsel), for respondent.

Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, RUBIN and ROSENBLATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered November 1, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree, conspiracy in the second degree, and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, dated October 21, 1988, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

ORDERED that the judgment and the order are affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, inter alia, of murder in the second degree resulting from the death of his adoptive father. The record revealed an alleged persistent pattern of mental and sexual abuse by the adoptive father toward the defendant. On appeal, the defendant essentially contends that the Supreme Court should have vacated the judgment of conviction, rendered upon a plea of guilty, because he was incompetent to stand trial pursuant to CPL 730.10, and therefore, he was incapable of participating in the proceedings leading up to his plea of guilty. We disagree.

Initially, we note that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in accepting the defendant's plea of guilty without sua sponte ordering a competency hearing or an updated competency examination pursuant to CPL 730.30. In a court-ordered examination conducted approximately one year prior to the defendant's entry of his guilty plea the defendant was found fit to stand trial. The defendant did not proffer evidence of changed circumstances following the initial examination which would warrant a hearing or an updated examination prior to the guilty plea (see, People v. Gensler, 72 N.Y.2d 239, 532 N.Y.S.2d 72, 527 N.E.2d 1209, cert denied 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 323, 102 L.Ed.2d 341; People v. Konits, 159 A.D.2d 590, 552 N.Y.S.2d 448; People v. Kestin, 134 A.D.2d 453, 521 N.Y.S.2d 75; People v. Cox, 93 A.D.2d 946, 463 N.Y.S.2d 75). While the record indicates that the defendant was readmitted to Kings County Hospital several weeks before his plea of guilty was taken, apparently because he evidenced increased anxiety levels and stronger suicidal tendencies as the trial date approached, the records concerning that admission do not establish that the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or that he was unable to assist in his defense ( see, People v. Carbone, 159 A.D.2d 511, 552 N.Y.S.2d 380; People v. Dudasik, 112 A.D.2d 20, 490 N.Y.S.2d 385; People v. Colville, 74 A.D.2d 928, 426 N.Y.S.2d 94). The Supreme Court properly considered the relevant factors bearing upon the issue of the defendant's competency ( see, People v. Williams, 144 A.D.2d 402, 403, 533 N.Y.S.2d 963; People v. Picozzi, 106 A.D.2d 413, 414, 482 N.Y.S.2d 335), and, based upon a review of the record, we are satisfied from the available information that there was no proper basis for questioning the defendant's competency ( see, Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824; People v. Gensler, supra, 72 N.Y.2d at 245, 532 N.Y.S.2d 72, 527 N.E.2d 1209; People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 371 N.Y.S.2d 691, 332 N.E.2d 870; see also, People v. Carbone, supra ).

With regard to the defendant's correlative argument regarding the voluntariness of his guilty plea, we are also satisfied that the plea was voluntarily made. The plea allocution satisfied the defendant's constitutional right to due process of law (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). The Supreme Court fully apprised the defendant of the constitutional rights waived by his plea of guilty, as well as...