| People v Lord |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00872 [59 AD3d 1010] |
| February 6, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michaeljon H.Lord, Appellant. |
—[*1] Edward M. Sharkey, District Attorney, Little Valley (Lori Pettit Rieman of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), renderedOctober 10, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the seconddegree, criminal sexual act in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child, andunlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, interalia, rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30 [1]), and endangering the welfare of achild (§ 260.10 [1]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in failing,sua sponte, to order a competency evaluation before trial (see CPL 730.30 [1];People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 765-766 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834[1999]; People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1995]). We reject that contention,inasmuch as the record is devoid of any indication that the court had "a 'reasonable ground forbelieving that [the] defendant [was] in such state of idiocy, imbecility or insanity that he [was]incapable of understanding the charge, indictment or proceedings or of making his defense' "(Tortorici, 92 NY2d at 765; see People v Corney, 303 AD2d 1006 [2003], lvdenied 1 NY3d 570 [2003]). We also reject the contention of defendant that the courtdeprived him of his right to a fair trial by admitting in evidence references to uncharged crimes.The references to those uncharged crimes were properly admitted in evidence to support thecount charging endangering the welfare of a child (see People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410,421-422 [1986], rearg denied 69 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v Lemanski, 217AD2d 962 [1995]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention with respect to thealleged inaccuracy of information relied upon by the court in sentencing him (see People vLeeson, 299 AD2d 919, 920 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 560 [2002]; People vWashington, 291 AD2d 780 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 682 [2002]), and we declineto exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Martoche, J.P., Fahey, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.