Opinion
1017 KA 16–01447
12-21-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jesus VEGA, Defendant–Appellant.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (JAMES M. SPECYAL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (JAMES M. SPECYAL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
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 promoting prison contraband in the first degree ( Penal Law § 205.25[2] ). Defendant contends that he was denied due process of law because the mental competency examination reports prepared by two psychiatric examiners pursuant to an order of County Court failed to comply with the requirements of CPL article 730. We reject that contention. The examination reports submitted to the court pursuant to CPL 730.20 and 730.30 were made by psychiatric examiners as defined by CPL 730.10(7). Each report includes the opinion of the psychiatric examiner that defendant is not an incapacitated person and that he is able to cooperate with his lawyer and participate in his defense, and each report sufficiently states the nature and extent of the examination (see CPL 730.10[8] ). Although one of the reports is typewritten on plain paper rather than on the standardized form, we conclude that where, as here, the report communicates all of the information essential to enable the court to make a full and impartial determination of defendant's mental capacity, the deviation in format is not substantial (see People v. Carkner, 213 A.D.2d 735, 739, 623 N.Y.S.2d 350 [3d Dept. 1995], lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 970, 629 N.Y.S.2d 730, 653 N.E.2d 626 [1995], lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 733, 631 N.Y.S.2d 613, 655 N.E.2d 710 [1995] ; cf. People v. Meurer, 184 A.D.2d 1067, 1068, 584 N.Y.S.2d 370 [4th Dept. 1992], lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 835, 587 N.Y.S.2d 919, 600 N.E.2d 646 [1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 907, 588 N.Y.S.2d 832, 602 N.E.2d 240 [1992] ; People v. Whysong, 175 A.D.2d 576, 577, 572 N.Y.S.2d 243 [4th Dept. 1991] ; People v. Lowe, 109 A.D.2d 300, 303–304, 491 N.Y.S.2d 529 [4th Dept. 1985], lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 653, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1049, 490 N.E.2d 566 [1986] ). Furthermore, the alleged factual errors contained in one of the reports are harmless misstatements that were not relevant to the issue of defendant's mental capacity and competency to stand trial. Inasmuch as the examination reports substantially comply with the requirements set forth in CPL article 730, we conclude that defendant was not denied due process.
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). "The resolution of credibility issues by the jury and its determination of the weight to be given to the evidence are accorded great deference" ( People v. Wallace, 306 A.D.2d 802, 802, 760 N.Y.S.2d 702 [4th Dept. 2003] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the correction officer who discovered the shank during a search of defendant's person and to reject the version of the incident set forth by defendant (see People v. Morrison, 48 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 852 N.Y.S.2d 495 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 867, 860 N.Y.S.2d 494, 890 N.E.2d 257 [2008] ).
Defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in its Sandoval ruling is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the People to cross-examine defendant about the facts underlying a prior conviction for criminal contempt in the first degree. The court "properly balanced the appropriate factors" ( People v. Larkins, 153 A.D.3d 1584, 1585, 62 N.Y.S.3d 648 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1061, 71 N.Y.S.3d 11, 94 N.E.3d 493 [2017] ) and determined that the probative value of the evidence to be admitted outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice to defendant (see generally People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 [1974] ).
Finally, defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.