Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher HANSEN, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered May 8, 1998, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a previously-entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court (see, CPL 220.60[3]; People v. White, 226 A.D.2d 750, 642 N.Y.S.2d 538; People v. Ochoa, 179 A.D.2d 689, 579 N.Y.S.2d 114). The defendant's conclusory assertions that he was dazed and confused at the time of the plea and that he was innocent are without support, and belied by the record. In the absence of anything in the record to suggest that the defendant's plea was either improvident or baseless, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea (see, People v. Rosa, 239 A.D.2d 364, 657 N.Y.S.2d 94).
The defendant's further contention that the County Court should have sua sponte ordered a psychiatric examination of him before imposing sentence is also without merit. A court must issue an order of examination when it is of the opinion that the defendant may be an incapacitated person (see, CPL 730.30 [1] ). A defendant is presumed competent (see, People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 459, 618 N.Y.S.2d 895, 643 N.E.2d 517), and this presumption cannot be rebutted by a mere showing that the defendant has a history of mental illness (see, People v. Dover, 227 A.D.2d 804, 805, 642 N.Y.S.2d 438). Here, other than the defendant's mere assertion that he was a paranoid schizophrenic, there is no support in the record for his contention that he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings at the time of the plea allocution (see, People v. Polimeda, 198 A.D.2d 242, 603 N.Y.S.2d 513). No medical evidence was provided concerning the defendant's mental state at the time of the plea allocution, and the defendant's responses during the plea allocution did not indicate that he was incapacitated (see, People v. Polimeda, supra).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 14, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)