People v. Cook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cook

46 A.D.3d 1427, 847 N.Y.S.2d 496

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1427 (People v. Cook) 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. Cook, 46 A.D.3d 1427, 847 N.Y.S.2d 496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered April 24, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the first degree.

[1428]*1428It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion by failing, sua sponte, to order a second competency evaluation at the time of the plea proceeding. We reject that contention (see generally People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1995]; People v Taylor, 13 AD3d 1168 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 836 [2005]). The record establishes that the court had ordered a competency evaluation prior to the plea proceeding and had received reports from two qualified psychiatrists stating that defendant understood the proceedings and was competent to assist in his defense. We cannot conclude on the record before us that the court abused its discretion in failing, sua sponte, to order another competency evaluation or in failing, sua sponte, to direct a hearing to determine the issue of defendant’s competency pursuant to CPL 730.30 (2). The further contentions of defendant in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief that his plea resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus was involuntary, involve matters that are outside the record on appeal and must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Washington, 39 AD3d 1228, 1229-1230 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 870 [2007]).

We have considered the remaining contentions in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief, and we conclude that they are without merit. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered April 24, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the first degree.

[1428]*1428It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion by failing, sua sponte, to order a second competency evaluation at the time of the plea proceeding. We reject that contention (see generally People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1995]; People v Taylor, 13 AD3d 1168 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 836 [2005]). The record establishes that the court had ordered a competency evaluation prior to the plea proceeding and had received reports from two qualified psychiatrists stating that defendant understood the proceedings and was competent to assist in his defense. We cannot conclude on the record before us that the court abused its discretion in failing, sua sponte, to order another competency evaluation or in failing, sua sponte, to direct a hearing to determine the issue of defendant’s competency pursuant to CPL 730.30 (2). The further contentions of defendant in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief that his plea resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus was involuntary, involve matters that are outside the record on appeal and must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Washington, 39 AD3d 1228, 1229-1230 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 870 [2007]).

We have considered the remaining contentions in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief, and we conclude that they are without merit. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 1427, 847 N.Y.S.2d 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cook-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack