Opinion
12-01-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brian N. JOHNSON, Appellant.
Robert Didio & Associates, Kew Gardens (Robert D. Didio of counsel), for appellant. Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen D. Ferri of counsel), for respondent.
Robert Didio & Associates, Kew Gardens (Robert D. Didio of counsel), for appellant.
Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen D. Ferri of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LYNCH, DEVINE, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.
PETERS, P.J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley, J.), rendered February 28, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.
In satisfaction of several charges, defendant waived indictment and entered a guilty plea to a superior court information charging him with robbery in the second degree. He was sentenced, as agreed, as a second felony offender to a prison term of 13 years with five years of postrelease supervision, and now appeals.
Defendant claims that County Court erred in declining to order, sua sponte, a hearing to determine his competency in light of certain statements that he made during his sentencing. A defendant is presumed to be competent, and a trial court is obligated to order a competency exam only if it has a “ reasonable ground for believing that a defendant [was] in such [a] state ... that he [or she was] incapable of understanding the charge, [accusatory instrument] or proceedings or of making his [or her] defense” due to a mental disease or defect (People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 765, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87 [1999], cert. denied 528 U.S. 834, 120 S.Ct. 94, 145 L.Ed.2d 80 [1999] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v. Kot, 126 A.D.3d 1022, 1024, 4 N.Y.S.3d 714 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1203, 16 N.Y.S.3d 525, 37 N.E.3d 1168 [2015] ; see CPL 730.10 [1 ] ).
The record in this case fails to rebut the presumption of competency. Defendant's remarks at sentencing, on which he now relies, were suggestive of a political or obstructionist frame of mind, not an incompetent one (see People v. Dowling, 92 A.D.3d 1034, 1034–1035, 937 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2012], lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 993, 945 N.Y.S.2d 648, 968 N.E.2d 1004 [2012] ; People v. Daley, 302 A.D.2d 745, 746, 755 N.Y.S.2d 749 [2003] ), and defense counsel did not at any point in the proceedings raise concerns regarding defendant's competency or request a competency hearing. County Court did not abuse its discretion by relying upon the available information, including its own observations of defendant, the nature of his remarks and the presentence report indicating that he had no psychiatric history to conclude that there was no reasonable basis to question his sanity or competency (see People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d at 765–766, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87 ; People v. Kot, 126 A.D.3d at 1024–1025, 4 N.Y.S.3d 714 ; People v. Stover, 123 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 999 N.Y.S.2d 221 [2014], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 936, 17 N.Y.S.3d 99, 38 N.E.3d 845 [2015] ; People v. Duffy, 119 A.D.3d 1231, 1232–1233, 990 N.Y.S.2d 346 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1043, 998 N.Y.S.2d 313, 23 N.E.3d 156 [2014] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
LYNCH, DEVINE, CLARK and AARONS, JJ., concur.