You are here: / / DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON...

DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant, who had been retained after he had been indicted for assault and entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, should not have been released without a hearing:

​

Although originally determined to suffer from a “dangerous mental disorder,” defendant progressed in treatment to the point where he was transferred to a nonsecure psychiatric facility. Petitioner nevertheless contends that defendant remains “[m]entally ill” and in need of “care and treatment as a patient, in the in-patient services of a psychiatric center under the jurisdiction of the state office of mental health” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). As a result, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a “[s]ubsequent retention order” (CPL 330.20 [1] [i]). In support of the application, petitioner submitted, inter alia, an appropriate affidavit from a psychiatric examiner in accordance with CPL 330.20 (20). Defendant demanded a hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20 (9), but he did not submit any affidavits in opposition to the application. * * *

​

Before issuing a release order, the court must conduct a hearing to “determine the defendant’s present mental condition” (CPL 330.20 [12]). Here, the undisputed submissions before the court in support of petitioner’s application for a subsequent retention order demonstrated that defendant remained “mentally ill” as defined in CPL 330.20 (1) (d) and in need of in-patient treatment. Nonetheless, without taking any testimony or receiving any evidence, the court issued a release order. That, itself, was error. Moreover, before issuing a release order, the court must “find[] that the defendant does not have a dangerous mental disorder and is not mentally ill” (CPL 330.20 [12]; … ). Here, we agree with petitioner that the court further erred in failing to make any finding on that issue. Guttmacher v S.J., 2017 NY Slip Op 04968, 4th Dept 6-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)/MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)

You might also like
WHEN A PARTY’S ATTORNEY APPEARS THE PARTY IS NOT IN DEFAULT AND MAY THEREFORE APPEAL, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CUSTODY TO NONPARENTS ABSENT A HEARING DEMONSTRATING EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SUPPRESSION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG “DEBOUR” LEVEL TO THE INITIAL INQUIRY BY THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT AND REQUESTED THAT HE STEP OUT OF THE CAR; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RULED UPON UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD, THE APPELLATE COURT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE ISSUE AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ONE COUNT INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AND WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL; THE APPELLATE COURT NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN NARROWED AT TRIAL, DISMISSAL WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE PRETRIAL NOTICE OF THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Motion for DNA Testing Should Have Been Granted
STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED, CONVICTION REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PRESENTATION.
Father’s Parental Rights Should Not Have Been Terminated Pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b Which Is Relevant Solely to Destitute or Dependent Children
DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME, WHICH APPARENTLY ALLEGED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NEGLIGENTLY EXPOSED TO COVID-19, WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT” OR THE “FEDERAL PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY ACT” (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A JURY NOTE REQUIRED REVERSAL. FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION...