Opinion ID: 353179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: History of Suggs from May, 1968, Through Pleas of Guilty Before Justice Nunez

Text: 31
32 On May 6, 1968, Suggs was arrested for feloniously assaulting a patrolman on the City College campus, where appellee may have taught karate. 8 Shortly thereafter he was charged with numerous rapes and robberies allegedly committed in April and May of 1968. 9 Because he was under nineteen years of age he reached seventeen in June of 1968 appellee was entitled to consideration for youthful offender treatment. The chief probation officer, Mr. Reeves, requested a prepleading psychiatric examination, 10 which was a fairly routine practice at that time in youthful offender cases. Suggs was examined first by a psychologist, 11 then by Dr. Messinger, a psychiatrist, at the Supreme Court Psychiatric Clinic on July 17, 1968, to assist the court in deciding whether youthful offender treatment was appropriate. 12 33 The psychological report is important since it was the basis for much of the subsequent psychiatric report of Dr. Messinger, the discovery of which caused our court to remand the previous grant of the writ in this case. This report explains that Suggs answers or not as he happens to feel at the moment, & refuses such tasks as he wishes. Much of the time he was angry and complaining, reciting various grievances, etc. He sat with his back turned to Ex. (examiner) for part of the time. Evidently his variable cooperation made for extreme swings on the psychological tests which ranged from defective to superior. The psychologist thought that Suggs had an intellectual potential well above average, but he has never submitted to the discipline of learning, so that he reads and spells at approximately a third grade level. Despite Suggs' lack of cooperation on most of the Rorschach tests, Suggs demonstrated that he is able to function very well when he is so inclined. The psychologist concluded that such projective material as we have, does not suggest a true thinking disorder, nor a psychosis. He impresses as willful, defensive, hostile, negativistic, paranoid, & anti-social. We would classify him as a narcissistic (sic ) behavior disorder 13 of extreme degree, a poor prognosis is quite likely. (Emphasis in original.) 34 A clinical history sheet evidently prepared by Dr. Messinger on July 17, 1968, shows only superficial mention of Suggs' prior unusual behavior. It refers to his stays at Wiltwyck and Warwick. Beyond this, little psychiatric information is revealed by the history. It indicates that Suggs complained of  'black-outs.'  It also quotes him as saying that (p)eople yell all the time. Suggs' inability to distinguish truth from fantasy is highlighted by much of the information he provided. 14 Suggs was initially diagnosed Without Psychosis, but pathologic, emotionally unstable, with depressive and paranoid trends. 35 On July 23, 1968, Dr. Messinger, who evidently had before him none of Suggs' psychiatric histories compiled at other institutions, submitted a formal report to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, indicating that (Suggs) is without psychosis and of average intelligence. The next four paragraphs discuss the psychological tests, mentioning appellee's composite I.Q. of 95, and quote the psychological report. Dr. Messinger's own observations were as follows: 36 At interview defendant displays a restless, truculent attitude as he tries to justify his habitual and extreme maladjustment on the conditions under which he was born and raised. He expresses violent antipathies towards his sister and his father, as well as all authority and parental surrogate figures. Review of his past shows that from his earliest years he has been indolent, rebellious, and intolerant of any restraint or restriction. He gets into fights both in and out of institutions and says, I don't need friends. If I make friends sooner or later they are my enemies. 37 Defendant's personality classification seems best described as that of the Pathologic Personality Group. Emotionally Unstable Type, with depressive and paranoid trends. 15 38 The court's copy of this report apparently went astray. It was not in the court file at the time of the plea proceedings before Justice Nunez. Its existence did not become known until April 1, 1975, when it was discovered by an Assistant Attorney General while the first appeal to this court from Judge Duffy's initial issuance of the writ was pending. 39
40 Following Dr. Messinger's examination on approximately July 26, 1968, Suggs was sent to the Brooklyn House of Detention for Men. On August 1, 1968, he was placed under special mental health observation due to a self-inflicted injury and an undated letter from Suggs suggesting the possibility of suicide. 16 41 According to Warren A. King, the psychiatric social worker who conducted the mental health evaluation, Suggs told him that Suggs had attempted to hang himself to retaliate against parents because they refused to write or visit. King noted in his report that before the transfer, he had warned the correction officers that this inmate could possibly be assaultive. He stressed that Suggs had a long history of acting out behavior and resulting institutionalization and is quite disturbed, and has a great deal of underlying hostility. This incident apparently was not known to Suggs' counsel or to any judge before whom appellee appeared until the hearing before Judge Duffy in January, 1977. 42
43 On September 13, 1968, Suggs, accompanied by his Legal Aid lawyer, Donald Tucker, pleaded guilty before Justice Nunez to one count each of rape in the first degree and of robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of all counts of the indictments. It is on this date that appellee's competency is in question. According to Mr. Tucker, Suggs came out of his cell on September 13 demanding to plead guilty to the charges and fully admitting his guilt as to all of them. Suggs signed a statement to that effect for Mr. Tucker. 44 Prior to accepting the pleas an extensive colloquy was held between Suggs and Justice Nunez, which was alluded to at length both by Justice Melia in the subsequent state court evidentiary hearing and by Judge Duffy in his opinions. Suggs related some of his family and school history, and in the process stated that he had been examined at the psychiatric clinic right downstairs. 17 In response to the court's questions, Suggs described one rape incident and one robbery. Asked the reason why he attacked the rape victim, he said, I just had it in mind. When asked why he threatened another woman and stole her purse, Suggs replied, I just wanted to steal it. 45 During the course of the colloquy, Suggs answered affirmatively questions concerning the voluntariness of his plea, 18 subsequently mandated by Boykin v. Alabama, 19 supra. Immediately before accepting the pleas the following conversation occurred: 46 The Court: You are not sorry at all that you did any of these things, Mr. Suggs? 47 The Defendant: Nothing to be sorry about. 48 The Court: What? 49 The Defendant: There is nothing to be sorry about. 50 The Court: Nothing to be sorry about? Well, what in your opinion would be something to be sorry about? If you did what? If what happened? 51 The Defendant: If I did something and I did it there is nothing to be sorry about after I do it. 52 The Court: No matter what you do? 53 The Defendant: No matter what I do. 54 Plea Minutes at 17-18, People v. Suggs, Nos. 3063-68, 3063A-68 (N.Y.County Sup.Ct., Sept. 13, 1968) (hereinafter Plea Minutes). Justice Nunez then accepted the pleas, but continued to question Suggs further on his lack of remorse. It is at this critical point in the record that the case takes on its full ramifications: 55 The Court: Well, now, Mr. Suggs, you know that you are going to be punished for these crimes, do you not? 56 The Defendant: Yes, sir. 57 The Court: Well, don't you think it might help you if you show that you are sorry, you show some compassion for your victims? 58 The Defendant: I tried that once. 59 The Court: What? 60 The Defendant: I tried that once. 61 The Court: You tried that once? When was that? 62 The Defendant: When I was small. 63 The Court: What happened when you were small? 64 The Defendant: I lost a finger because I tried. 65 The Court: You lost a finger, you say? 66 The Defendant: Part of it. 67 The Court: What happened then? 68 The Defendant: That's when I did something when I had a fight with my sister. I wanted to show my mother I was sorry. Instead of showing her I was sorry, she cut me. 69 The Court: Who tried to cut you, your mother or your sister?The Defendant: My mother. 70 Id. at 19-20. 71 Whether it was the description of the incident of his mother's cutting off his finger something which was untrue from other past histories, see note 5, supra Suggs' lack of remorse, or his general demeanor, something rang a bell with Justice Nunez. He immediately said: Set it down for investigation and sentence October 31st. I want a complete psychiatric examination and report on this boy. And for that purpose I wish to commit him on my motion to Bellevue Hospital for examination and report. Id. at 20. Justice Nunez then explained to appellee: We are going to have the doctors look at you, Mr. Suggs. They may be able to help you in some way because there is something wrong with you, apparently. You seem to be whom are you mad at? The defendant answered, No one. The court responded: All right, see you on the 31st. Try to cooperate with the doctors. See if they can help you. Id. at 21. 72 Years later, at the state evidentiary hearing, Justice Nunez, who recalled the Suggs case due to appellee's unexpected responses, testified by stipulation that he had ordered the Bellevue examination not just as an aid in sentencing but for all purposes, including a determination of whether defendant was competent to be tried. 20 He also testified that even had he been aware of Dr. Messinger's report of July 23, 1968, he still might have ordered the Bellevue examination since 73 (t)he defendant's answers were unusual. The Messinger report was only a preliminary report because the Psychiatric Clinic does not have the time or the facilities to make the kind of complete examination that can be done at Bellevue Hospital. (It) said that the defendant was without psychosis and did not speak to the issue of whether he was competent to be tried. 74