People v. Truss
| Decision Date | 30 November 1992 |
| Citation | 591 N.Y.S.2d 42,187 A.D.2d 742 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles TRUSS, Appellant. 91-10614 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael Edward Plank, New Rochelle, for appellant.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Paul D. Stein, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, MILLER and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), rendered October 25, 1991, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The court did not err in failing, sua sponte, to direct that the appellant undergo psychiatric evaluation to ascertain his ability to understand the proceedings against him and to participate in his defense (see, CPL 730.10), prior to accepting his plea of guilty. The defendant stated, during colloquy leading up to a guilty plea which the defendant later withdrew, that he was taking "prolixin" and that this medication had a disorienting effect. However, during the plea allocution, the court repeatedly inquired of the defendant whether he understood the proceedings in which he was involved. The defendant consistently responded that he did understand the proceedings. The court expressly observed on the record that the defendant appeared to be "well oriented [and] clear headed", and that he raised intelligent questions during the allocution. Both attorneys further agreed that the defendant "clearly understood and responded in an appropriate way to all questions put to him".
In any event, when the court realized it could not honor the sentence commitment, the defendant withdrew his guilty plea and then pleaded guilty once again, again assuring the court that he understood the proceedings (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). At this second proceeding, the defendant specifically advised the court that the effects of his medication had worn off so that he did understand the proceedings. He never claimed otherwise (see, People v. Garcia, 161 A.D.2d 796, 556 N.Y.S.2d 667), and he acknowledged that he had discussed his options with his attorney and was satisfied with counsel's representation (see, People v. Carbone, 159 A.D.2d 511...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Parker
...there was no reasonable basis from which to conclude that the defendant was an incapacitated person (see, CPL 730.10; People v. Truss, 187 A.D.2d 742, 591 N.Y.S.2d 42; People v. Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 337, 557 N.Y.S.2d It is apparent from the record that the defendant was able to understand the......
-
People v. Carlaftes
...every case where a defendant has a history of mental problems (see, People v. Parker, 191 A.D.2d 717, 595 N.Y.S.2d 519; People v. Truss, 187 A.D.2d 742, 591 N.Y.S.2d 42; People v. Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 337, 557 N.Y.S.2d Furthermore, the court granted the defendant's request to order psychiatri......
-
People v. Rosado
...at the time of his pleas is not supported by the record (see, People v. Hollis, 204 A.D.2d 569, 614 N.Y.S.2d 211; People v. Truss, 187 A.D.2d 742, 591 N.Y.S.2d 42; People v. Polimeda, 198 A.D.2d 242, 603 N.Y.S.2d We have reviewed the defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be witho......
-
People v. Truss
...595 N.Y.S.2d 748 81 N.Y.2d 848, 611 N.E.2d 787 People v. Truss (Charles) Court of Appeals of New York Feb 08, 1993 Bellacosa, J. 187 A.D.2d 742, 591 N.Y.S.2d 42 App.Div. 2, Westchester Denied ...