UBBINK, DANIEL S., PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1176
    KA 09-00593
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    DANIEL S. UBBINK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County
    (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered January 30, 2009. The judgment
    convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the
    second degree (four counts) and stalking in the fourth degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon a jury verdict of one count of stalking in the fourth degree
    (Penal Law § 120.45 [2]) and four counts of criminal contempt in the
    second degree (§ 215.50 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, he
    was not denied due process based on Supreme Court’s failure, sua
    sponte, to conduct a competency hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30 (2)
    (see People v Chicherchia, 86 AD3d 953, 954, lv denied 17 NY3d 952).
    “A defendant is presumed competent . . . , and the court is under no
    obligation to issue an order of examination . . . unless it has
    ‘reasonable ground . . . to believe that the defendant [is] an
    incapacitated person’ ” (People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 880). Where
    the court has “ ‘reasonable ground for believing that a defendant is
    in such state of idiocy, imbecility, or insanity that he [or she] is
    incapable of understanding the charge, indictment or proceedings or of
    making his [or her] defense,’ ” it must direct that the defendant be
    examined (People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 765, cert denied 
    528 US 834
    ). “[T]he decision to order a competency examination . . . lies
    within the sound discretion of the trial court” (People v Williams, 35
    AD3d 1273, 1274, lv denied 8 NY3d 928). There is no indication in the
    record that the court “ ‘receive[d] information which, objectively
    considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about defendant’s
    competency and alerted [the court] to the possibility that the
    defendant could neither understand the proceedings or appreciate their
    significance, nor rationally aid his attorney in his defense’ ” so as
    -2-                          1176
    KA 09-00593
    to warrant a competency examination, much less a competency hearing
    (People v Arnold, 113 AD2d 101, 103).
    We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied
    effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d
    137, 147; People v Tuszynski, 71 AD3d 1407, 1408, lv denied 15 NY3d
    810; People v Lewis, 67 AD3d 1396, 1396-1397, lv denied 14 NY3d 772).
    Also without merit is defendant’s contention that the court abused its
    discretion when it denied defendant’s repeated requests for new
    counsel during the trial. “The right of an indigent criminal
    defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not
    encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant’s
    option” (People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824; see People v Kirkland, 177
    AD2d 946, 946-947, lv denied 79 NY2d 859). Rather, defendant must
    demonstrate good cause for the substitution, “such as a conflict of
    interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel” (Sides, 75
    NY2d at 824; see People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 207-208). Prior to
    trial, the court twice granted defendant’s request for new counsel.
    The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s mid-
    trial requests for the appointment of new trial counsel inasmuch as
    defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the substitution (see
    People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 19, rearg dismissed 57 NY2d 776, cert
    denied 
    459 US 1178
    ).
    Entered:   November 16, 2012                    Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 09-00593

Filed Date: 11/16/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016