| People v Cook |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10305 [46 AD3d 1427] |
| December 21, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Cook,Appellant. |
—[*1] Donald Cook, defendant-appellant pro se. Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Donna A. Milling of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.),rendered April 24, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalsexual act in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminalsexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [3]), defendant contends that SupremeCourt abused its discretion by failing, sua sponte, to order a second competency evaluation at thetime of the plea proceeding. We reject that contention (see generally People v Morgan,87 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1995]; People vTaylor, 13 AD3d 1168 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 836 [2005]). The recordestablishes that the court had ordered a competency evaluation prior to the plea proceeding andhad received reports from two qualified psychiatrists stating that defendant understood theproceedings and was competent to assist in his defense. We cannot conclude on the record beforeus that the court abused its discretion in failing, sua sponte, to order another competencyevaluation or in failing, sua sponte, to direct a hearing to determine the issue of defendant'scompetency pursuant to CPL 730.30 (2). The further contentions of defendant in his main briefand his pro se supplemental brief that his plea resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel, andthus was involuntary, involve matters that are outside the record on appeal and must be raised byway of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Washington, 39 AD3d 1228, 1229-1230 [2007], lvdenied 9 NY3d 870 [2007]).
We have considered the remaining contentions in defendant's pro se supplemental brief, andwe conclude that they are without merit. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lunn andPeradotto, JJ.