Opinion ID: 353179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Plea of Guilty Before Justice Nunez.

Text: 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