PEOPLE v. JONES (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65[3] ) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10[1] ).   We reject the contention of defendant that his due process rights were violated by County Court's determination that he was competent to stand trial.   Contrary to defendant's contention, there was no violation of CPL 730.20(1).   The court issued an order of examination, whereupon two qualified psychiatric examiners examined defendant.   Those two psychiatric examiners testified at a hearing conducted by the court, and the court subsequently granted the People's request to reopen the hearing to enable a third psychiatric examiner to testify.   Contrary to defendant's contention, there was no need for two additional psychiatric examiners to examine defendant inasmuch as the court did not issue a second order of examination.   Conflicting testimony was presented at the hearing with respect to defendant's competency, and the court's findings are entitled to great deference (see People v. Garrasi, 302 A.D.2d 981, 982, 754 N.Y.S.2d 799, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 538, 763 N.Y.S.2d 4, 793 N.E.2d 418;  People v. Brow, 255 A.D.2d 904, 905, 682 N.Y.S.2d 320).   We conclude that the court properly determined that the People established defendant's competency by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Aponte, 34 A.D.3d 298, 823 N.Y.S.2d 406, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 843, 830 N.Y.S.2d 702, 862 N.E.2d 794;   Garrasi, 302 A.D.2d at 982, 754 N.Y.S.2d 799;  see generally People v. Mendez, 1 N.Y.3d 15, 19-20, 769 N.Y.S.2d 162, 801 N.E.2d 382).   Contrary to defendant's further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: