People v. Wood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wood

251 A.D.2d 521, 673 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6817

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 521 (People v. Wood) 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. Wood, 251 A.D.2d 521, 673 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered March 1, 1996, convicting him of rape in the first degree and coercion in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in concluding, after a hearing, that the defendant was competent to stand trial (see, CPL 730.10). The People sustained their burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the defendant was not an incapacitated person (see, People v Supino, 202 AD2d 454; People v Cox, 196 AD2d 596; People v Santos, 43 AD2d 73, 75-76). The hearing court’s crediting of the testimony of the People’s experts rather than that of the defendant’s experts should be accorded great deference (see, People v Orama, 150 AD2d 505, 506).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Joy, 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, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered March 1, 1996, convicting him of rape in the first degree and coercion in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in concluding, after a hearing, that the defendant was competent to stand trial (see, CPL 730.10). The People sustained their burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the defendant was not an incapacitated person (see, People v Supino, 202 AD2d 454; People v Cox, 196 AD2d 596; People v Santos, 43 AD2d 73, 75-76). The hearing court’s crediting of the testimony of the People’s experts rather than that of the defendant’s experts should be accorded great deference (see, People v Orama, 150 AD2d 505, 506).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 521, 673 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wood-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack