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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 24, 2003·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

303 A.D.2d 685 (People v. Abreu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related