People v. Jennings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jennings

203 A.D.2d 303, 612 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedApril 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 303 (People v. Jennings) 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. Jennings, 203 A.D.2d 303, 612 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.) rendered June 1, 1992, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

There is no basis to support the conclusion that at the time the defendant admitted that he violated probation, he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or that he was unable to assist in his own defense. Accordingly, an order of examination was not warranted (see, CPL 730.30; People v Johnston, 186 AD2d 680; People v Rogers, 163 AD2d 337). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.) rendered June 1, 1992, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

There is no basis to support the conclusion that at the time the defendant admitted that he violated probation, he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or that he was unable to assist in his own defense. Accordingly, an order of examination was not warranted (see, CPL 730.30; People v Johnston, 186 AD2d 680; People v Rogers, 163 AD2d 337). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 303, 612 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jennings-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack