THE PEOPLE &C. v BART ALEXANDER - Legal Case Documents


\|

THE PEOPLE &C. v BART ALEXANDER

Keywords & Phrases

CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE &C., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I02_0030, Plea, Guilty Plea, Withdraw, Motion, Alford Plea, Ny2d, Trial Court, Physicians, Discretion, Abuse, Conviction, Charges, Denying, Victim, Prosecution, Competent, Innocence, Factual Basis, Jaw, Protection, Appellate Division, Criminal Contempt, Psychiatrists, Fit, Medication, Judge , ContentID: 120251759

Case Documents

2002-03-21

OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 125668

7 pages
HTML

Total Documents: 1 document , 7 pages

Price: $ 19.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

DEFENDANT
COURT
GUILTY PLEA
WITHDRAW
MOTION
ALFORD PLEA
NY2D
TRIAL COURT
PHYSICIANS
LAW
DISCRETION
ABUSE
CONVICTION
CHARGES
DENYING
VICTIM
PROSECUTION
COMPETENT
INNOCENCE
FACTUAL BASIS
JAW
PROTECTION
APPELLATE DIVISION
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
COUNSEL
PSYCHIATRISTS
FIT
MEDICATION
JUDGE



   4 No. 22
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Bart Alexander,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2002 NY Int. 30

   March 21, 2002

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

   Vincent F. Gugino, for appellant.
   Raymond C. Herman, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   ROSENBLATT, J.:

   At any time before it imposes sentence, a court in its discretion may
   permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea (see CPL 220.60(3)). On
   the facts before us, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its
   discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea,
   and we therefore affirm the order of the Appellate Division upholding
   defendant's conviction.

   Defendant was indicted for beating his girlfriend on separate
   occasions by kicking her in the face, punching her in the stomach,
   breaking her jaw and dragging her across a hardwood floor. Because an
   order of protection required defendant to stay away from the victim,
   the indictment included criminal contempt charges. Counseled by his
   attorney, defendant entered an Alford plea to criminal contempt in the
   first degree (Penal Law §  215.51(b)(v)) in satisfaction of the
   indictment (see North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25 (1970)).

   While awaiting sentence, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea,
   claiming he was not competent when he entered it. The trial court
   ordered a psychiatric examination pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law
   article 730 -- a vehicle to determine whether a defendant is competent
   to stand trial. In their reports, both examining physicians concluded
   that defendant was fit to proceed. They stated that he required
   medication for his "personality disorder with cyclothymic and
   anti-social features," but that he was neither an "incapacitated
   person" nor was he suffering from psychosis or impaired cognition.

SNIPPETS:

On the facts before us, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in

Defendant was indicted for beating his girlfriend on separate occasions by kicking her in the

Because an order of protection required defendant to stay away from the victim, the

The trial court ordered a psychiatric examination pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law article

both examining physicians concluded that defendant was fit to proceed.

They stated that he required medication for his "personality disorder with cyclothymic and

Although the psychiatrists made no mention of defendant's mental condition on the day he

It follows that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea will not be granted merely for the asking,

For example, in People v Dixon ), we noted that "defendant is not entitled to withdraw his

Under oath defendant told the court that, after consulting with counsel, he understood the

The court then asked defendant whether by tendering an Alford plea he was pleading guilty for

Indeed, contrary to his protestations of innocence, defendant did not plead guilty to kicking

Because I believe the Trial Court was obligated to determine defendant's fitness to proceed

While the resulting psychiatric reports indicated that the defendant was fit to proceed at

On this appeal, defendant argues that he was not fit to proceed on the date of his plea, that

the Court should not have accepted an Alford Plea without some indication from the


\|