People v Phillips
2009 NY Slip Op 09293 [68 AD3d 541]
December 15, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
James Phillips, Appellant.

[*1]Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Richard M. Greenberg of counsel), forappellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Timothy C. Stone of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered January 31,2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, assaultin the first degree, aggravated criminal contempt (two counts), criminal contempt in the firstdegree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts) andmenacing in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimouslyaffirmed.

After an extensive and thorough hearing, the court properly found that the brain injurydefendant sustained as the result of a stroke did not render him incompetent to stand trial. Theevidence established that defendant was able to "consult with his lawyer with a reasonabledegree of rational understanding," and had a "rational as well as factual understanding of theproceedings against him" (People v Francabandera, 33 NY2d 429, 436 [1974]). There isno basis for disturbing the court's weighing of conflicting expert testimony. Among other things,the court properly concluded that the principal defense expert relied heavily on standardized teststhat were of limited value in a determination of legal competency, that the testimony of apsychologist called by the People was very significant because of her extended contact withdefendant, that defendant's conduct and testimony at the competency hearing furtherdemonstrated his capacity to stand trial, and that a series of special accommodations wouldminimize the effect of defendant's medical condition on his ability to assist in his defense.

The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his postarrest statement.Defendant's condition did not cast any doubt on his ability to understand the Mirandawarnings and voluntarily waive his rights (see People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285[1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims. Concur—Friedman,J.P., Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 14 Misc 3d 1221 (A),2007 NY Slip Op 50119(U).]


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.