People v. Greco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Greco

177 A.D.2d 648

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 648 (People v. Greco) 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. Greco, 177 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered February 14, 1989, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that she was an "incapacitated person” within the meaning of CPL 730.10 (1) at the time of trial and sentencing. While the defendant had been found "incapacitated” after several CPL article 730 hearings both prior to trial, and after verdict, there is little in the record to indicate that during trial and sentencing, the defendant did not have a sufficient present ability to consult with her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against her (see, Dusky v United States, 362 US 402; People v Francabandera, 33 NY2d 429). The mere fact that the defendant complained in open court as to defense counsel’s method of cross-examination, his tactics, and the fairness of the procedures, does not indicate that the defendant was mentally disoriented (see, People v Picozzi, 106 AD2d 413). Additionally, the defendant had been examined and found competent a couple of months before trial, and there was no evidence to show that there had been any change of circumstances (see, People v Konits, 159 AD2d 590, cert denied — US —, 111 S Ct 344).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including her claim of excessive sentence, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Fiber 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered February 14, 1989, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that she was an "incapacitated person” within the meaning of CPL 730.10 (1) at the time of trial and sentencing. While the defendant had been found "incapacitated” after several CPL article 730 hearings both prior to trial, and after verdict, there is little in the record to indicate that during trial and sentencing, the defendant did not have a sufficient present ability to consult with her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against her (see, Dusky v United States, 362 US 402; People v Francabandera, 33 NY2d 429). The mere fact that the defendant complained in open court as to defense counsel’s method of cross-examination, his tactics, and the fairness of the procedures, does not indicate that the defendant was mentally disoriented (see, People v Picozzi, 106 AD2d 413). Additionally, the defendant had been examined and found competent a couple of months before trial, and there was no evidence to show that there had been any change of circumstances (see, People v Konits, 159 AD2d 590, cert denied — US —, 111 S Ct 344).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including her claim of excessive sentence, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Fiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-greco-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack