People v. Bolder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bolder

166 A.D.2d 452

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 452 (People v. Bolder) 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. Bolder, 166 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered January 4, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court violated his due process rights in not holding a hearing to determine his competency, after his consistently incoherent statements made at a hearing during which he withdrew a previously entered plea of guilty. We disagree. The record shows that, while the defendant’s attempts to make legal points showed some flaws of logic, there was no evidence of irrationality requiring a competency hearing.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, 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 Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered January 4, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court violated his due process rights in not holding a hearing to determine his competency, after his consistently incoherent statements made at a hearing during which he withdrew a previously entered plea of guilty. We disagree. The record shows that, while the defendant’s attempts to make legal points showed some flaws of logic, there was no evidence of irrationality requiring a competency hearing.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bolder-nyappdiv-1990.