People v. Kenney

225 A.D.2d 707, 639 N.Y.2d 940, 639 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2641
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

We reject the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court was statutorily required to conduct a competency hearing after the defendant was found fit to proceed pursuant to CPL 730.60 (2) (see, People v Gensler, 72 NY2d 239, cert denied 488 US 932). In addition, the Supeme Court did not err by failing to conduct a hearing sua sponte (see, People v Gensler, supra). There is no evidence in the record that the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his [708]*708own defense (see, CPL 730.10 [1]). Moreover, the defendant’s plea of guilty was knowingly and voluntarily entered (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Miller, J. P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Kenney, 225 A.D.2d 707, 639 N.Y.2d 940, 639 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 707 (People v. Kenney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pendleton
128 A.D.3d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)