Opinion
April 27, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The jury's rejection of the defense that the defendant was not responsible for his acts by reason of mental defect or disease was not against the weight of the evidence. A jury is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the opinion of any expert (see, People v. Klumbach, 202 A.D.2d 1009, 1010; People v. Moss, 179 A.D.2d 271, 272; People v. Justice, 173 A.D.2d 144, 146). The record in this case supports the jury's rejection of the defense expert's opinion that the defendant lacked criminal responsibility with respect to the crimes charged (see, People v. Rison, 151 A.D.2d 879, 880).
We reject the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to, sua sponte, order a competency examination at the time of sentencing. A defendant is presumed competent to proceed and the trial court is not required to order an examination unless it has reason to believe that the defendant is an "incapacitated person" (CPL 730.10; 730.30 [1]; see also, People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878, 879-880; People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 459). A defendant's psychiatric history alone does not mandate that the court order such an examination (see, People v. Morgan, supra, at 881; People v. Gelikkaya, supra, at 459). There is nothing to suggest that the defendant was unable as a result of mental disease or defect to understand the proceedings or to assist in his own defense (see, CPL 730.10; People v. Barnwell, 227 A.D.2d 664; People v. Rippel, 221 A.D.2d 1025; People v. Rosebrough, 199 A.D.2d 1024; People v. Greco, 177 A.D.2d 648).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.