Galandreo v. Perlman

Second Circuit

Galandreo v. Perlman

115 F. App'x 514

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 2004

DocketNo. 04-0329

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 F. App'x 514 (Galandreo v. Perlman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Galandreo v. Perlman, 115 F. App'x 514 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-appellant Tom Galandreo appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.) denying habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Shortly before Galandreo’s trial, the New York Supreme Court ordered an examination into Galandreo’s competency; two court-appointed psychiatrists found him fit to proceed to trial. Galandreo argues that his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to order sua sponte a mental competency examination in response to Galandreo’s “irrational” behavior at trial. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the portion of Judge Weinstein’s opinion that considers that issue. Galandreo v. Perlman, 02-CV-6799, Memorandum, Judgment & Order at 28-35 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2003).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-appellant Tom Galandreo appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.) denying habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Shortly before Galandreo’s trial, the New York Supreme Court ordered an examination into Galandreo’s competency; two court-appointed psychiatrists found him fit to proceed to trial. Galandreo argues that his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to order sua sponte a mental competency examination in response to Galandreo’s “irrational” behavior at trial. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the portion of Judge Weinstein’s opinion that considers that issue. Galandreo v. Perlman, 02-CV-6799, Memorandum, Judgment & Order at 28-35 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2003).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. App'x 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galandreo-v-perlman-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack