People v. Abreu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Abreu

303 A.D.2d 685, 756 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 685 (People v. Abreu) 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 v. Abreu, 303 A.D.2d 685, 756 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 26, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A determination by the hearing court as to whether a defendant is fit to proceed is accorded great deference (see People v Mendez, 297 AD2d 291 [2002]; People v Martin, 291 AD2d 459 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 653 [2002]; People v Cox, [686]*686196 AD2d 596, 597 [1993]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court correctly determined that he was fit to proceed within the meaning of CPL 730.10 (1). The testimony of the experts finding the defendant competent was uncontroverted, and satisfied the People’s burden of demonstrating the defendant’s fitness by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v Mendez, supra; People v Cox, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, McGinity, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 26, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A determination by the hearing court as to whether a defendant is fit to proceed is accorded great deference (see People v Mendez, 297 AD2d 291 [2002]; People v Martin, 291 AD2d 459 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 653 [2002]; People v Cox, [686]*686196 AD2d 596, 597 [1993]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court correctly determined that he was fit to proceed within the meaning of CPL 730.10 (1). The testimony of the experts finding the defendant competent was uncontroverted, and satisfied the People’s burden of demonstrating the defendant’s fitness by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v Mendez, supra; People v Cox, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, McGinity, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 685, 756 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abreu-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack