| People v Hassan |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 03363 [172 AD3d 744] |
| May 1, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Bilal Hassan, Appellant. |
Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Yael V. Levy and W. Thomas Hughes ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Philip M.Grella, J.), rendered August 25, 2016, convicting him of aggravated vehicular homicide (twocounts), vehicular manslaughter in the first degree (two counts), manslaughter in the seconddegree, driving while intoxicated (two counts), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motorvehicle in the first degree, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the seconddegree, reckless driving, and circumvention of an interlock device, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to permit the trial to proceed without firstholding a competency hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30. CPL 730.30 (1) provides that "the courtwherein the criminal action is pending must issue an order of examination when it is of theopinion that the defendant may be an incapacitated person." "The determination of whether toorder a competency hearing lies within the sound discretion of the trial court" (People vTortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 766 [1999]; see People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 879[1995]; People v Gensler, 72 NY2d 239, 247 [1988]). Here, there was no indication thatthe defendant had a history of mental illness. Moreover, the court, which had ample opportunityto observe the defendant's behavior and demeanor, had a sound basis for determining that thedefendant's behavior was more indicative of an attempt by him to impede the progress of the trialthan genuine mental incompetency (seePeople v Wyche, 21 AD3d 281, 284 [2005]; People v Chandler, 224 AD2d 992,993 [1996]). Additionally, the defendant was not deprived of his right to the effective assistanceof counsel based on his counsel's failure to request a competency hearing (see People v Shaffer, 81 AD3d989, 990 [2011]; People vTerrell, 78 AD3d 865, 866 [2010]).
The defendant's contention that the sentences imposed on the convictions of aggravatedvehicular homicide (two counts), vehicular manslaughter in the first degree (two counts), andmanslaughter in the second degree were "cruel and unusual" punishment is unpreserved forappellate review (see People v Pena,28 NY3d 727, 730 [2017]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Miller, 74 AD3d1097 [2010]). The sentences imposed thereon were not excessive (see People vSuitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.