People v Cerilli (Michael)

[*1] People v Cerilli (Michael) 2010 NY Slip Op 50420(U) [26 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on March 9, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 9, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
2008-1595 D CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Michael L. Cerilli, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County (John M. Kennedy, J.), rendered July 8, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, the plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Defendant was initially charged with criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51). Thereafter, in February 2008, the Justice Court issued an order directing a psychiatric examination to determine whether defendant was fit to proceed. Following the examination, defendant was declared incapacitated, pursuant to CPL
730.30, as a result of mental disease or defect. On April 8, 2008, the charge was reduced to criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50), and the court accepted defendant's plea of guilty thereto without conducting a hearing to determine that he was no longer an incapacitated person (see CPL 730.30 [3]; People v Valvano, 186 AD2d 769 [1992]). On appeal, defendant contends that the judgment of conviction should be reversed and his guilty plea vacated because the Justice Court failed to ensure that he was competent to proceed in the action. We agree.

Since, under these circumstances, defendant could not waive his right to challenge his competency to proceed in a criminal action, it was error for the court to allow defendant to enter a plea of guilty (see Valvano, 186 AD2d at 769). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the guilty plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for further proceedings, including a hearing to determine defendant's competency.

In view of the foregoing determination, we pass upon no other issue raised on appeal.

Nicolai, P.J., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: March 09, 2010