People v Lewis
Annotate this CaseDecided on April 17, 2017
County Court, Orange County
The People of the State of New York,
against
Regina Lewis, Defendant.
2015-389
ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
40 Matthews Street
Goshen, New York 10924
MATTHEW D. WITHEROW, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant
P.O. Box 1005
Port Jervis, New York 12771
Craig Stephen Brown, J.
On the 2nd day of March, 2017, a Hearing was held pursuant to CPL §730.60(2) to determine whether defendant is an incapacitated person. Appearing for the People was Kerry Kolek, Esq., Assistant District Attorney for the County of Orange. Appearing for defendant was Matthew D. Witherow, Esq. The following witnesses testified at the Hearing: Patricia Simon-Phelan, Ph.D. and Lega Lalire, Ph.D.
Defendant is charged with Marking a Terroristic Threat (Penal Law §490.20[1]) On November 14, 2016, at the request of defendant's attorney, the Court issued a Examination Order pursuant to CPL §730.30(1). Patricia Simon-Phelan, Ph.D. and Vargas Lalire, Ph.D. were appointed to conduct the examinations. Both examiners submitted reports which indicated that, in their opinion, defendant was not incapacitated. At the request of defendant's attorney, a Hearing was held to determine defendant's capacity to proceed.
Dr. Patricia Simon-Phelan, a licensed psychologist, conducted a forensic examination of defendant on January 10, 2017. Dr. Simon-Phelan testified that although defendant suffers from a mental illness and has a history of psychiatric hospitalizations for a bipolar disorder, depression and intermittent explosive disorder, she nonetheless understands the charge against her and understands the roles of the judge, the prosecutor, her attorney, and a jury. Dr. Simon-Phelan [*2]testified that based on defendant's awareness of the charge against her and her defense and the roles of the those participating in court proceedings, it is her opinion that defendant is not an incapacitated person.
Notwithstanding her opinion, Dr. Simon-Phelan acknowledged that there are issues relating to defendant's ability and desire to cooperate and interact with her attorney. Specifically, Dr. Simon-Phelan testified that defendant "did not want the case to go through the normal channels. She wanted the case to be dismissed" and is fixated on her demand that the case be dismissed. Dr. Simon-Phelan acknowledged that defendant was unable to understand that if the case was not dismissed, she would have to proceed to trial. The doctor further acknowledged that the defendant was unable to comprehend the case not being dismissed, and the defendant is unwilling to proceed to trial, but is equally unwilling to consider a plea bargain. As such, the defendant will not have any meaningful discussion with her attorney regarding either of these options.
Despite her acknowledgment that there were issues relating to defendant's relationship with her attorney, Dr. Simon-Phelan expressed her opinion that defendant was not incapacitated. She based her opinion, in part, on her belief that if defendant was found to be incapacitated, the case against her would never be adjudicated. Instead, defendant would be thrown into an endless cycle. The Court finds that Dr. Simon-Phelan's belief that the case against defendant "would never end" if defendant were found incompetent was a substantial factor in reaching her opinion that defendant is competent to stand trial.
Dr. Vegas Lalire conducted a forensic examination of defendant on January 9, 2017. She also concluded from her examination that defendant understands the court process, understands the role of the judge, the prosecutor, her attorney, and the jury. As a result, she stated in her report that it was her opinion, at the time, that defendant was not an incapacitated person. However, before Dr. Lalire was called to testify at the hearing, she observed defendant's behavior in court, where defendant lashed out at her attorney and the undersigned. During her testimony, Dr. Lalire concluded that defendant, as a result of her mental illness does not have the ability to work with or assist her attorney, and based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty, defendant is an incapacitated person. Her opinion was based upon her interview, coupled with her observations of the defendant's interactions with her attorney and the Court during the proceeding. The Court credits the testimony of Dr. Lalire.
It should be noted that the undersigned was assigned this case after the other two Orange County Court Judges recused themselves after they received what they determined to be threatening letters from defendant. On or about June 28, 2016, while the case was assigned to Hon. Nicholas De Rosa, J.C.C., an Order was signed by Hon. Nicholas De Rosa prohibiting the Orange County Sheriff from sending any of defendant's correspondence to the Court and, instead, to forward it to her attorney.
The procedural history of this case is also significant. On October 8, 2015, following the receipt of the reports of two examiners, defendant's attorney and the District Attorney agreed that defendant lacked the capacity to proceed. An Order of Commitment was signed. Defendant was found to be "fit to proceed" on November 24, 2015. On May 19, 2016, at the request of defendant's attorney, an Examination order was signed by Judge De Rosa. Defendant refused to be examined. On August 11, 2016, at the request of defendant's attorney, another Examination [*3]Order was issued. Both examiners found defendant to be not incapacitated but no hearing was ordered. On November 14, 2016, at the request of defendant's attorney, another Examination Order was signed and reports were submitted by Drs. Simon-Phelan and Lalire.
This case was assigned to the undersigned on July 18, 2016. On several occasions since then, defendant refused to come to court for scheduled court appearances which resulted in the issuance of Orders to Produce authorizing the Sheriff to use reasonable force to bring defendant to court. Defendant appeared in Court on no less than seven occasions and frequently engaged in obstreperous conduct which included making disparaging remarks directed at and concerning her attorney and her conduct made it clear she was not cooperating with her attorney. Two of defendant's prior attorneys were relieved due to their stated inability to work with defendant. One attorney, in his letter to the Court requesting to be relieved, stated that when he went to the jail to speak with defendant, defendant refused to come out of her cell and, when she did, would scream and insult him during the jail visits.
The Court finds that defendant's failure to cooperate with her attorney is an inability to do so, based upon her mental illness, rather than an unwillingness to do so. It is clear that there are short periods of time when the defendant is able to communicate and cooperate with her counsel, but her mental illness prevents her from maintaining that ability to do so.
By virtue of the foregoing, the Court finds that as a result of defendant's mental illness, she does not have the ability to assist her attorney in her own defense. According, defendant is an incapacitated person pursuant to the provisions of CPL §730.30(2).
Order of Commitment signed herewith.
The aforesaid constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: April17, 2017
Goshen, New York
E N T E R
___s/__________________________
HON. CRAIG STEPHEN BROWN
COUNTY COURT JUDGE
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.
