Matter of Evans v Rochester Psychiatric Ctr.
Annotate this CaseDecided on April 15, 2005
Supreme Court, Monroe County
IN THE MATTER OF Joseph Evans, Petitioner,
against
Rochester Psychiatric Center, Respondent.
2000-7349
For Petitioner:Dana M. Ragsdale, Esq.
Mental Hygiene Legal Services
Appellate Division Fourth Department
50 East Avenue , Suite 402
Rochester, New York 14604
For Respondent:Emil J. Bove, Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
144 Exchange Boulevard
Rochester, New York 14614
Joseph D. Valentino, J.
County Court (Geraci, J.) issued a first retention order dated February 17, 2005, which determined that petitioner has a dangerous mental disorder for which he requires retention in respondent's secure forensic unit. Thereafter, petitioner sought a rehearing and review pursuant to CPL 330.20(16). Petitioner did not appeal County Court's order.
The petition alleges that petitioner is not mentally ill, does not have a dangerous mental disorder, is sane, and is entirely capable of managing himself and his affairs. Petitioner contends that he does not meet the retention standards as fixed by the State courts in that he is not presently
dangerous to himself or others by reason of mental illness. Petitioner waived a jury trial and the CPL 330.20 (16) rehearing was conducted April 7, 2005.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the hearing, respondent presented the testimony of Roberto Sebastian, a board eligible forensic psychiatric fellow. Sebastian's curriculum vitae was received into evidence. Sebastian [*2]testified that he has been employed by respondent since July 2004, and is licensed by New York State. He has previously testified in court as an expert.
Sebastian testified that he has been petitioner's treating psychiatrist since July 2004. He sees petitioner at least 30 minutes each week to assist with his mental state, including medications and treatment plans. Sebastian also observes petitioner in the forensic unit at respondent's facility. He has reviewed petitioner's medical record in which he also records his own notes.
Sebastian recounted petitioner's over 20-year history of psychiatric hospitalization for mental illness and his history of 11 assault incidents while hospitalized. These 11 incidents occurred in civil and forensic units at Mid-Hudson, St. Lawrence, Hutchings, and Rochester Psychiatric Centers.
Petitioner has a history of hearing voices. On December 9, 1981, in Syracuse, New York, petitioner stabbed and killed a person because voices told him to do so. Voices also him that he was the devil. He was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and has been hospitalized in forensic and civil units since that time. Incidentally, petitioner was first hospitalized for mental illness in May 1979.
In June 2000, petitioner was transferred from Mid-Hudson to respondent's facility, where he was placed in the forensic unit. Petitioner was initially paranoid, delusional, and suspicious of other patients. He remained in the forensic unit until 2002.
In May 2004, petitioner was again admitted to the forensic unit due to assaults on staff (May 21, 2004, when he punched a staff member in the face) and three assaults on other patients (including May 22, and 25, 2004). Sebastian testified that petitioner also exhibited paranoia against the staff.
Since confinement to respondent's facility, petitioner has been inconsistent with his participation in group therapy. Since February 2005, petitioner has decreased his group participation to eight groups per week, down from 20 groups per week. Petitioner is classified as a level one, with the lowest level of privileges due to his lack of participation with group therapy.
Petitioner is presently prescribed three medications, Risperidone, Depakote, and Navane. He is not permitted any furloughs. He remains hospitalized on the second floor with the more critically ill patients.
His medical records reflect that when reprimanded in February 2005, petitioner believed that he was being singled out by hospital staff and was impervious to counter arguments that staff was trying to maintain safety.
Petitioner is presently diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia, and Sebastian testified that petitioner has a dangerous mental disorder. Sebastian also indicated that petitioner has 1) impairment in performing reality testing, 2) "false beliefs that people are after him," 3) auditory hallucinations of voices coming from Allah and he also hears voices telling him to kill himself or others, and 4) he has an IQ (intelligence quotient) of 72. Sebastian testified that petitioner currently exhibits increased level of suspiciousness and delusions and that he has borderline intellectual function.
Sebastian opined that petitioner has a mental illness as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03 (20), that he presents a risk of harm to himself and others, and that he has a dangerous mental illness. Sebastian also testified that petitioner lacks compliance with treatment and has, at times, stopped taking his prescribed medications, which leads to an increased level of psychosis and increased level of assaultive behavior. Sebastian also stated that petitioner will continue to be a threat to himself and others in the future, and that this risk is high. He testified that petitioner has [*3]assaulted staff and patients without provocation, and although petitioner has insight into his mental illness, he does not believe suspiciousness is a part of his mental illness.
Sebastian further testified that petitioner, as of April 4, 2005, was complaint with his medications and had stated that he was "tired of groups" which he has been going to for 22 years.
The Court finds Sebastian to be a credible witness. Defendant offered no witnesses.
The above constituted the relevant testimony and evidence presented during the hearing. Following the hearing, respondent submitted a certified copy of petitioner's medical records at respondent's facility. Also, both parties submitted closing statements.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAWSection 330.20 (16) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that: "Any defendant who is in custody of the commissioner pursuant to a commitment order, a retention order, or a recommitment order, if dissatisfied with such order, may, within thirty days after the making of such order, obtain a rehearing and review of the proceedings and of such order in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.35 or 15.35 of the mental hygiene law."
McKinney's Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35 provides in part: "If . . . the decision of the court when jury trial has been waived, be that such person is not mentally ill or is not in need of retention the justice shall forthwith discharge him, but if . . . the decision of the court where a jury trial has been waived, be that such person is mentally ill and in need of retention the justice shall certify that fact and make an order authorizing continued retention under the original order."
A rehearing and review pursuant to CPL 330.20 (16) seeks to ascertain an insanity acquittee's mental condition at the time the rehearing and review is conducted. Such a proceeding "is a review of the earlier record [and] any new evidence presented by the parties concerning the acquittee's mental status at the time of the rehearing and review" (Matter of Norman D., 3 NY3d 150, 155-156). "[I]t is not a rehearing in the conventional sense, but a de novo evidentiary proceeding, with the findings a snapshot of the acquittee's condition at that moment" (id.). Such a proceeding determines whether the insanity acquittee is mentally ill (Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, ___ AD3d___, ___, 790 NYS2d 94,99 -100; see, Matter of Maureen A. v Wack, 153 Misc2d 600). "It is a guarantee that the conditions of supervision originally imposed are appropriate at the time of the new proceeding" (Matter of Norman D., supra ). Significantly, "rehearing and review under CPL 330.20(16) is not a substitute for appellate review of a recommitment order" (Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, supra , at 100, citing Matter of Norman D., supra , at 153-154).
Matter of Norman D., supra , is instructive on the scope of Supreme Court's role on a rehearing pursuant to CPL 330.20 (16) and Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.35 and 15.35. On a rehearing and review, Supreme Court is not authorized to review the determination as to dangerous mental disorder (Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, supra ).
Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, supra , which involved a rehearing and review of a recommitment order, concluded that Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35 does not provide for a retrial on the question of a dangerous mental disorder by either the jury or the court (id.). Following a [*4]rehearing and review pursuant to CPL 330.20 (16) "on the question of mental illness, one of two dispositions is required: 'If the verdict of the jury [or the decision of the court when jury trial has been waived] be that such person is not mentally ill or is not in need of retention the justice shall forthwith discharge him, but if the verdict of the jury [the decision of the court when jury trial has been waived] be that such person is mentally ill and in need of retention the justice shall certify that fact and make an order authorizing continued retention under the original order'" (Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, supra , at 99 quoting Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35).
Accordingly, in light of the above statute and case law, which limit the Court's role in a rehearing and review pursuant to CPL 330.20 (16), and the testimony and evidence presented, the Court determines that petitioner suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, has a mental illness within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03, and is in need of retention because he poses a danger to himself or others. As such, petitioner shall be retained pursuant to County Court's February 17, 2005 order (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35; Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, supra ; see also, Matter of Norman D., supra ).
Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, supra , noted that an "acquittee who wishes to challenge a finding that he or she has a dangerous mental disorder [is not] without a remedy [and] may appeal from the recommitment order (see, CPL 330.20 [21])."
This constitutes the decision, order and judgment of this Court. The petition is denied and petitioner's continued retention is authorized in the forensic unit.
DATED:Rochester, New York
April 15, 2005
_____________________________________
HON. JOSEPH D. VALENTINO
JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
