| People v Johnson |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08128 [145 AD3d 1109] |
| December 1, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vBrian N. Johnson, Appellant. |
Robert Didio & Associates, Kew Gardens (Robert D. Didio of counsel), forappellant.
Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen D. Ferri ofcounsel), for respondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County(Cawley, J.), rendered February 28, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of robbery in the second degree.
In satisfaction of several charges, defendant waived indictment and entered a guiltyplea to a superior court information charging him with robbery in the second degree. Hewas sentenced, as agreed, as a second felony offender to a prison term of 13 years withfive years of postrelease supervision, and now appeals.
Defendant claims that County Court erred in declining to order, sua sponte, a hearingto determine his competency in light of certain statements that he made during hissentencing. A defendant is presumed to be competent, and a trial court is obligated toorder a competency exam only if it has a "reasonable ground for believing that adefendant [was] in such [a] state . . . that he [or she was] incapable ofunderstanding the charge, [accusatory instrument] or proceedings or of making his [orher] defense" due to a mental disease or defect (People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757,765 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999] [internal quotation marks and citationomitted]; accord People vKot, 126 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 [2015];see CPL 730.10 [1]).
The record in this case fails to rebut the presumption of competency. Defendant'sremarks at sentencing, on which he now relies, were suggestive of a political orobstructionist frame of mind, not an incompetent one (see People v Dowling, 92AD3d 1034, 1034-1035 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 993 [2012]; People vDaley, 302 AD2d 745, 746 [2003]), and defense counsel did not at any point in theproceedings raise concerns regarding defendant's competency or request a competencyhearing. County Court did not abuse its discretion by [*2]relying upon the available information, including its ownobservations of defendant, the nature of his remarks and the presentence report indicatingthat he had no psychiatric history to conclude that there was no reasonable basis toquestion his sanity or competency (see People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d at 765-766;People v Kot, 126 AD3d at 1024-1025; People v Stover, 123 AD3d 1232, 1233 [2014], lvdenied 26 NY3d 936 [2015]; People v Duffy, 119 AD3d 1231, 1232-1233 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 1043 [2014]).
Lynch, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.