Opinion
2013–11051 Ind.No. 53/06
04-24-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Leaman KING, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Kathryn E. Mullen of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Kathryn E. Mullen of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to, sua sponte, order an eighth competency examination (see CPL 730.30[1] ). "The court was entitled to give weight to the findings and conclusions of the defendant's most recent competency examination, which found him fit to proceed, and to its own observations of the defendant" ( People v. Soto , 23 A.D.3d 586, 586, 806 N.Y.S.2d 612 ; see People v. Gensler , 72 N.Y.2d 239, 244, 532 N.Y.S.2d 72, 527 N.E.2d 1209 ; People v. Walker , 53 A.D.3d 672, 672, 863 N.Y.S.2d 220 ; People v. Barnes , 24 A.D.3d 248, 249, 808 N.Y.S.2d 166 ; People v. Greco , 177 A.D.2d 648, 648, 576 N.Y.S.2d 349 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.