People v Metellus

[*1] People v Metellus 2008 NY Slip Op 50367(U) [18 Misc 3d 1139(A)] Decided on February 27, 2008 Supreme Court, Kings County D'Emic, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 27, 2008
Supreme Court, Kings County

The People of the State of New York

against

Mario Metellus, Defendant.



4923/05



Attorney for the People:

Charles J. Hynes

District Attorney, Kings County

350 Jay Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

by ADA David Kelly

(718)-250-2000

Attorney for the defendant:

Julie Clark, Esq.

32 Court Street, Suite 707

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(718)-625-6888

Matthew J. D'Emic, J.

On August 11, 2005, the defendant was indicted for Murder in the Second Degree and ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination to determine his fitness to proceed to trial pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Article 730. Since that time several subsequent examinations have taken place finally resulting in a finding of fitness by the examining doctor. Defendant contests the finding and a hearing was held before the court on that issue. [*2]

Testifying credibly at the competency hearing was Doctor James Hicks, a psychologist, and Doctor Thomas Tuzel, the defendant's treating psychiatrist during his confinement at Kirby Psychiatric Center. Both doctors testified that this defendant, after a short period of treatment, was able to interact meaningfully with hospital staff and patients, was oriented as to time and place, had good memory and was fully able to understand and correctly respond to questions about court processes.

It was the further opinion both of Doctor Hicks and Doctor Tuzel, based on tests and observations, that the defendant was feigning mental illness. Both doctors are of the opinion that the defendant is fit to proceed to trial.

Although there is a presumption of competency, where the issue arises, the People must prove fitness by a preponderance of the evidence (People v Troy, 28 AD2d 689). In this case, both examining doctors found the defendant fit to proceed to trial, contending that the defendant has a rational understanding of the proceedings against him which is sufficient to sustain a finding of competency to proceed to trial (Dusky v United States, 362 US 402; People v Jeffrey, 277 AD2d 714).

The court finds that the defendant is fit to proceed to trial. The doctors contend he understands these proceedings and is a malingerer to suit his own purposes. Thus his ability to communicate with counsel, if not his willingness, has been proven by sufficient evidence to sustain these contentions. Unwillingness to consult with counsel under these circumstances may make a defendant unwise but it does not make him unfit (e.g. People v Catlett, 254 AD2d 198).

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

____________________________

Matthew J. D'Emic

J.S.C.