People v. Claudio

183 A.D.2d 945, 583 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 7, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 945 (People v. Claudio) 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. Claudio, 183 A.D.2d 945, 583 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered June 12, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in accepting his plea of guilty without first ordering a competency hearing. Under CPL 730.30 (1), a psychological examination is required when the court is "of the opinion that the defendant may be an incapacitated person”. Here, the record fails to reveal the existence of any reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was incapable of understanding the charges against him or of making his defense (see, People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167; People v Jones, 134 AD2d 701, lv denied 71 NY2d 969). His statements at the plea allocution and at sentencing fail to indicate any sign that he was incapacitated. In addition, failure to admit sufficient facts to establish each and every element of the charged crime does not, as a matter of law, preclude a valid plea of guilty (see, People v Smith, 146 AD2d 828, lv denied 74 NY2d 669). County Court conducted a thorough inquiry as to whether defendant wished to plead guilty notwithstanding his alleged lack of memory due either to his being intoxicated or under the influence of drugs (see, [946]*946supra). His indication that he was pleading guilty to limit the possible penalty to which he would be exposed upon trial, even given his inability to admit participation in the crime, does not invalidate the plea (see, People v Krawitz, 151 AD2d 850, lv denied 74 NY2d 742).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Crandall
272 A.D.2d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Mailey
262 A.D.2d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Wheeler
249 A.D.2d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Martin
239 A.D.2d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Planty
238 A.D.2d 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Thompkins
233 A.D.2d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Sims
217 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Shapard
199 A.D.2d 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 A.D.2d 945, 583 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-claudio-nyappdiv-1992.