Majority
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A defendant found competent to stand trial has the ultimate authority, even over counsel’s objection, to reject the use of a psychiatric defense (see People v Petrovich, 87 NY2d 961 , 963 [1996]; People v Constas, 59 AD3d 729 , 730 [2009]; People v Ciborowski, 302 AD2d 620 , 622 [2003]). The defendant, who was found competent to stand trial (see CPL 730.30 [2]; People v Pulecio, 237 AD2d 633 , 633 [1997]), was consistent in his refusal to present an insanity defense. Moreover, the record indicates that he and his counsel, with whom he had a cooperative relationship, considered and discussed this issue extensively. There is nothing indicating either that the defendant had any difficulty understanding his decision and its implications, or that counsel provided him with inaccurate advice. Thus, contrary to the defendant’s current contention, the Supreme Court was not obligated to conduct additional inquiry before permitting the defendant to forego a psychiatric defense (see People v Pulecio, 237 AD2d at 633 ; cf. People v Petrovich, 87 NY2d at 963 ; People v Ciborowski, 302 AD2d at 622 ). Eng, PJ., Rivera, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Petrovich 87 NY2d 961 at 963 p. 928
- People v. Constas 59 AD3d 729 at 730 p. 928
- People v. Ciborowski 302 AD2d 620 at 622 p. 928
- People v. Pulecio 237 AD2d 633 at 633 p. 928