Opinion
Submitted September 7, 2000
September 25, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered October 26, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's right to appear and testify before the Grand Jury pursuant to CPL 190.50 was not violated in any way. Moreover, the defendant's original attorney followed well-reasoned and competent pretrial strategy in advising him that it was not in his best interest to testify before the Grand Jury (see, People v. Thompson, 238 A.D.2d 615).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling was a provident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. McLemore, 264 A.D.2d 858; People v. Kelland, 208 A.D.2d 954), as was its denial of the defendant's midtrial application pursuant to CPL article 730 for a psychiatric examination to determine his competency (see, People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878; People v. Russell, 74 N.Y.2d 901).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The contentions raised in the defendant's pro se brief are without merit.