Opinion
2011-09-20
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Nathaniel JOHNSON, appellant.
Michael O'Brien, Syosset, N.Y., for appellant.Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Constant of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered July 1, 2009, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court did not err in failing to order a competency hearing. A defendant is presumed to be competent, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that, at the time the defendant entered his plea of guilty, he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or was unable to assist in his defense ( see CPL 730.10[1]; People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878, 880, 638 N.Y.S.2d 942, 662 N.E.2d 260; People v. Gensler, 72 N.Y.2d 239, 243–246, 532 N.Y.S.2d 72, 527 N.E.2d 1209, cert. denied 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 323, 102 L.Ed.2d 341; People v. Batista, 82 A.D.3d 1113, 1114, 919 N.Y.S.2d 350; People v. Shaffer, 81 A.D.3d 989, 917 N.Y.S.2d 267; People v. Gallo, 73 A.D.3d 804, 804–805, 899 N.Y.S.2d 655). The mere existence of a notation in the presentence report that the defendant has been treated for bipolar disorder since 2002 does not, without more, trigger a duty to inquire as to his competency ( see People v. Batista, 82 A.D.3d at 1114, 919 N.Y.S.2d 350; People v. Kessler, 5 A.D.3d 504, 505, 772 N.Y.S.2d 582; People v. Hansen, 269 A.D.2d 467, 467–468, 704 N.Y.S.2d 269). Furthermore, the responses made by the defendant at the plea and sentencing proceedings were appropriate and did not indicate that he was incapacitated ( see People v. Gallo, 73 A.D.3d at 805, 899 N.Y.S.2d 655; People v. M'Lady, 59 A.D.3d 568, 873 N.Y.S.2d 331; People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 566, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803).
SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.