Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Richardson

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


May 12, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
VINCENT RICHARDSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 1, 2008, convicting defendant, after a non-jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta, DeGrasse, JJ.

4513/07

The court properly declined to order a midtrial CPL article 730 competency examination. Nothing in the record casts doubt on defendant's competency (see Pate v Robinson, 383 US 375 [1966]; People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 766 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999]; People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 881 [1995]). On the contrary, defendant engaged in a series of interchanges with the court that demonstrated his familiarity with legal procedures, his understanding of the charges, and his ability to assist in his defense (see People v Russell, 74 NY2d 901 [1989]).

Defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Counsel could have reasonably concluded that a competency examination would have accomplished nothing except delaying the completion of the trial. Counsel appropriately informed the court that his client's pro se request for a competency examination was baseless, and defendant was not prejudiced by any statements counsel made to the court in that connection.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20090512

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.