People ex rel. La Rose v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. La Rose v. Campbell

219 A.D.2d 779, 631 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9493

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D.2d 779 (People ex rel. La Rose v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. La Rose v. Campbell, 219 A.D.2d 779, 631 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), entered March 7, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner, who is currently in the custody of respondent Commissioner of Mental Health pursuant to his plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease to two counts of sodomy in the first degree, seeks a writ asserting that the proceeding in which he originally entered his plea was defective. At the outset, we note that although respondents vigorously argue that habeas corpus is not available to challenge the entry of petitioner’s plea because he had the remedy of a direct appeal or motion to withdraw (see, e.g., People ex rel. Whitehead v Jones, 184 AD2d 801) and petitioner maintains that such a remedy is available (see, e.g., People ex rel. Thorpe v Von Holden, 63 NY2d 546), we do not find it necessary to resolve this question because we find that petitioner’s underlying allegations of impropriety lack merit.

Specifically, petitioner alleges that County Court erred in the original plea proceeding by allowing only one psychiatrist to testify when evidence from two qualified psychiatric examiners is called for in CPL 330.20 (2). However, the procedures for taking and entering a plea of not guilty for reason of mental disease or defect is actually governed by CPL 220.15. CPL 330.20 specifically refers to postjudgment procedures to be followed subsequent to such a plea (see, CPL 220.15 [6]). Significantly, our review of the record reveals that County Court sufficiently followed the procedures called for in CPL 220.15 when petitioner’s plea was taken. Petitioner’s remaining contentions are similarly unpersuasive and, accordingly, we find no error in the denial of the writ.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), entered March 7, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner, who is currently in the custody of respondent Commissioner of Mental Health pursuant to his plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease to two counts of sodomy in the first degree, seeks a writ asserting that the proceeding in which he originally entered his plea was defective. At the outset, we note that although respondents vigorously argue that habeas corpus is not available to challenge the entry of petitioner’s plea because he had the remedy of a direct appeal or motion to withdraw (see, e.g., People ex rel. Whitehead v Jones, 184 AD2d 801) and petitioner maintains that such a remedy is available (see, e.g., People ex rel. Thorpe v Von Holden, 63 NY2d 546), we do not find it necessary to resolve this question because we find that petitioner’s underlying allegations of impropriety lack merit.

Specifically, petitioner alleges that County Court erred in the original plea proceeding by allowing only one psychiatrist to testify when evidence from two qualified psychiatric examiners is called for in CPL 330.20 (2). However, the procedures for taking and entering a plea of not guilty for reason of mental disease or defect is actually governed by CPL 220.15. CPL 330.20 specifically refers to postjudgment procedures to be followed subsequent to such a plea (see, CPL 220.15 [6]). Significantly, our review of the record reveals that County Court sufficiently followed the procedures called for in CPL 220.15 when petitioner’s plea was taken. Petitioner’s remaining contentions are similarly unpersuasive and, accordingly, we find no error in the denial of the writ.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 779, 631 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-la-rose-v-campbell-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack