Opinion
1214 CA 18–02006
02-07-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. DAVID T., Defendant-Appellant.
MICHAEL D. NEVILLE, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, GARDEN CITY (LAURA ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (NICOLE K. INTSCHERT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
MICHAEL D. NEVILLE, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, GARDEN CITY (LAURA ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (NICOLE K. INTSCHERT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously reversed in the interest of justice and on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: After defendant was charged with arson in the second degree ( Penal Law § 150.15 ), County Court accepted his plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect (see CPL 220.15[1] ). As a result, the court entered an order pursuant to CPL 330.20 requiring, inter alia, that defendant be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners to determine whether he had a dangerous mental disorder or, if not, whether he was mentally ill (see CPL 330.20[1][c], [e] ; [2] ). The examiners thereafter completed their examinations and submitted respective examination reports in which they both concluded that defendant had a dangerous mental disorder. Defendant now appeals, by permission of this Court, from an amended order that, upon the court's finding that defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, committed him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health for confinement in a secure facility.
In pertinent part, CPL 330.20(6) provides that, "[a]fter the examination reports are submitted, the court must, within [10] days of the receipt of such reports, conduct an initial hearing to determine the defendant's present mental condition" (emphasis added) (see Matter of New York State Off. of Mental Health v. Marco G. , 167 A.D.3d 49, 51, 85 N.Y.S.3d 441 [1st Dept. 2018] ; People v. Darryl T., 166 A.D.3d 68, 76, 84 N.Y.S.3d 458 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Matheson KK., 161 A.D.3d 1260, 1261, 76 N.Y.S.3d 645 [3d Dept. 2018] ). In this case, however, the court did not conduct an initial hearing. We agree with defendant that, as the People correctly concede, the court's failure to conduct the requisite initial hearing constitutes reversible error (see People v. Shawn B., 135 A.D.3d 782, 782, 23 N.Y.S.3d 306 [2d Dept. 2016] ). Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review (see id. ; see generally Darryl T., 166 A.D.3d at 78, 84 N.Y.S.3d 458 ), we nevertheless review it in the interest of justice (see generally Shawn B., 135 A.D.3d at 782, 23 N.Y.S.3d 306 ; Breitung v. Canzano, 238 A.D.2d 901, 902, 660 N.Y.S.2d 765 [4th Dept. 1997] ). We therefore reverse the amended order and remit the matter to County Court to conduct an initial hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20(6).