People v Lama (Patrick)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Lama (Patrick) 2005 NYSlipOp 50484(U) Decided on April 6, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 6, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS -x PRESENT : McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2003-1308 N CR -x

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

PATRICK LAMA, Appellant. -x

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the District Court, Nassau County (E. Maron, J.), rendered August 11, 2003, convicting him, upon his guilty pleas, of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1]) and failure to signal (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]), and imposing sentences.


Judgments of conviction affirmed.

Defendant, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pleaded guilty to petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1]) and failure to signal (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]). Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to vacate his guilty pleas contending that the court abused its discretion in accepting the pleas without holding a CPL article 730 and CPL 390.30 (2) hearing to determine defendant's competency.

Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets forth the procedures to be followed in order to prevent the criminal trial of a defendant "who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense" (CPL 730.10 [1]). Section 730.30 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that at any time after arraignment on an accusatory instrument and before imposition of sentence, the court wherein the criminal action is pending must issue an order of examination when it is of the opinion that the defendant may be an incapacitated person (see People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 765 [1999], cert [*2]denied 528 US 834 [1999]; People v Smyth, 3 NY2d 184, 187 [1957]; see also Drope v Missouri, 420 US 162, 180 [1970]; Pate v Robinson, 383 US 375, 387 [1966]). A defendant however, is presumed to be competent (People v Gelikkaya, 84 NY2d 456, 459 [1994]), and a court is not required to order an examination unless it has reason to believe that the defendant is an incapacitated person, i.e., that as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense (CPL 730.10 [1]; 730.30 [1]; see also People v Barclay, 1 AD3d 705 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 567 [2003]). A trial court is not required to hold a hearing simply because a defendant has a history of mental illness (People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1995]) and such history does not necessarily render a defendant incompetent to enter a knowing and voluntary plea (People v Greene, 274 AD2d 842, 843 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 963 [2000]).

In the case at bar, the pre-sentence report, which was reviewed by both the court and defense counsel prior to the pleas, noted that defendant had a history of mental difficulties, was diagnosed with severe epilepsy and suffered several grand mal seizures per month for which he was being treated. The report also noted that defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. Defense counsel did not request an article 730 hearing prior to the pleas. At the allocution, defendant appeared lucid and did not exhibit signs of lack of understanding. In addition, defendant considered the court's questions, indicated that he understood his rights, the terms of the plea agreement and the nature of the proceedings. In view of the foregoing, the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting defendant's pleas without holding a competency hearing (see People v Kron, 8 AD3d 908 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 708 [2004]; see also People v Clickner, 128 AD2d 917 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 644 [1987]; cf. People v Frazier, 114 AD2d 1038 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 883 [1986]).

We note that the sentences imposed were in conformity with the commitment made to defendant at the time of his pleas and, in light of defendant's criminal history, were not excessive.

McCabe, P.J., and Tanenbaum, J., concur.

Covello, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: April 06, 2005

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.