The People of the State of New York Essay Example for Free

The People of the State of New York Essay Nature of the Case: Appeal upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault on a police officer and criminal use of a firearm in the 2nd degree. Concise Rule of Law:Mental Hygiene Law  § 9.41 which permits persons who appear to be mentally ill and acting in a manner that threatens safety of self or others to be taken into custody. The Penal Law  § 120.08 imposes strict liability with respect to the serious injury aspect of a crime. Facts of the Case:In August 2008, McCray alerted Sunmount Developmental Disabilities Office (SDDO) and Franklin County Emergency Services he was armed and had intended on commit suicide. McCray was eventually found in a canoe to the Raquette River by a variety of police agencies including State Troopers and officers from Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC). This resulted in a standoff for many hours during which McCray maintained aim of the loaded shotgun at himself. A trooper seized an opportunity to grab the gun, along with a DEC officer. A struggle ensued and the gun went off causing massive injuries to a Troopers hand. After being arrested, McCray was charged by indictment with assault on a police officer and criminal use of a firearm in the 2nd degree. Following a trial, McCray was convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years in prison followed by 5 years of post-release supervision, defendant appeals. Issues of the Case: Was McCray’s mental health status such that he qualified for consideration under Mental Hygiene Law  § 9.41 or Penal Law  § 120.08 which addresses the element of the intent? Did McCray’s attorney represent him effectively? Was his punishment considered harsh or excessive? Holding of the Case: Mental Hygiene  § 9.41 does not impermissibly criminalizes defendant’s mental illness. Penal Law  § 120.08 does not negate the requirement to prove intent. McCray was not impermissibly criminalized. McCray’s attorney had represented him properly. No, it was not excessive or harsh Rationale of the Case: As it is relevant here, Mental Hygiene Law  § 9.41permits a State Trooper to â€Å"take into custody any person who appears to be mentally ill and is conducting himself or herself in a manner which is likely to result in serious harm to the person or others† to detentions made pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law  § 9.41, and Penal Law  § 120.08 does not necessarily criminalize a defendants mental illness, contrary to defendants contention. The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been made as an CPL Article 440 motion to the trial court, but, â€Å"viewed in totality and as of the time of representation,† we find the â€Å"evidence† the law, and the circumstances of [this] particular case†¦the attorney provided meaningful representation.† It is possible for an individual charged with assault on a police officer to present evidence at trial that he or she was mentally ill at the time of the incident, and thus, did not possess the requisite intent to commit the crime. Considering the defendant’s history, which dates back to 1987 and includes several prior firearm-related convictions, and the circumstances of this case does not support that the County Court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant to the maximum available sentence, nor does it establish extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant a reduction of the sentence in the justice of the interest. The law and the circumstances of this particular case have revealed that the attorney provided meaningful representation. The decision that was imposed on McCrary by the County Court was not harsh or excessive. Disposition of the Case: On June 14, 2012 the judgment was affirmed.