People v. Chambers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chambers

226 A.D.2d 390, 640 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3411

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

DecidedApril 1, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 390 (People v. Chambers) 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. Chambers, 226 A.D.2d 390, 640 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered December 19,1994, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the People sustained their burden of establishing the defendant’s fitness to proceed by a preponderance of credible evidence through the testimony of two psychiatrists, the only witnesses to testify at the hearing (see, People v Cox, 196 AD2d 596; People v Orama, 150 AD2d 505). Thus, we find that the court properly determined that the defendant was competent at the time of the plea allocution and at sentencing. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, 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, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered December 19,1994, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the People sustained their burden of establishing the defendant’s fitness to proceed by a preponderance of credible evidence through the testimony of two psychiatrists, the only witnesses to testify at the hearing (see, People v Cox, 196 AD2d 596; People v Orama, 150 AD2d 505). Thus, we find that the court properly determined that the defendant was competent at the time of the plea allocution and at sentencing. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 390, 640 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chambers-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack