| People v Perez |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07881 [44 AD3d 491] |
| October 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v VictorPerez, Also Known as Radames Villanueva, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Grace Vee of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered March 24,2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree (two counts), petitlarceny and bail jumping in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felonyoffender, to an aggregate term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly declined to order a midtrial psychiatric examination. Nothing in therecord casts doubt on defendant's mental competency (see Pate v Robinson, 383 US 375[1966]; People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 766 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834[1999]; People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 881 [1995]). There was no history of mentalillness or other indication of lack of capacity. Instead, defense counsel informed the court thatwhile throughout the case defendant had understood the charges and assisted in his defense, hehad suddenly shown a lack of understanding of a legal concept, that is, the strict liability aspectof assault on a police officer (see Penal Law § 120.05 [3]). This was no indicationthat he lacked understanding of the proceedings as a result of a mental disease or defect (seePeople v Stamps, 296 AD2d 325 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 540 [2002]).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence. There was ample evidence that each of the two police officers sustained physical injury(see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d445 [2007]; People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).
Both of defendant's constitutional claims concerning his sentence are unpreserved and wedecline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would findthat defendant's sentence, which was the minimum permitted by law, was not unconstitutionallysevere (see Rummel v Estelle, 445 US 263, 271 [1980]; People v Broadie, 37NY2d 100, 110-111 [1975], cert denied 423 US 950 [1975]), and that his challenge to theprocedure under [*2]which he was adjudicated a persistent felonyoffender is also without merit (see Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224[1998]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.