Opinion
2015-03-20
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darron S. MORRIS, Defendant–Appellant.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of Counsel), for Respondent.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in failing, sua sponte, to conduct a competency hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30(2). The institution in which defendant was confined determined that he was no longer an incapacitated person ( seeCPL 730.60[2] ) and, thereafter, neither defendant nor the District Attorney made a motion for a competency hearing. Thus, the determination whether to order a hearing on its own motion was within the court's discretion ( seeCPL 730.30[2]; People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 766, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87, cert. denied528 U.S. 834, 120 S.Ct. 94, 145 L.Ed.2d 80). “Considering the evidence before [the c]ourt regarding defendant's competence, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in failing, on its own, to order a hearing” (Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d at 766, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87; see People v. Carrion, 65 A.D.3d 693, 693–694, 884 N.Y.S.2d 483, lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 858, 891 N.Y.S.2d 693, 920 N.E.2d 98; People v. Gaines, 26 A.D.3d 269, 270, 812 N.Y.S.2d 11, lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 847, 816 N.Y.S.2d 753, 849 N.E.2d 976).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court erred in allowing the People to present evidence concerning prior uncharged crimes ( see People v. Reed, 78 A.D.3d 1481, 1482, 910 N.Y.S.2d 604, lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 745, 917 N.Y.S.2d 627, 942 N.E.2d 1052), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ). By making only a general motion to dismiss the charges of attempted murder and assault in the first degree after the People rested their case ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919), and by failing to renew that part of the motion at the close of his case ( see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329, rearg. denied97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396), defendant failed to preserve his contention that his conviction of those charges is not supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see People v. Bausano, 122 A.D.3d 1341, 1341–1342, 996 N.Y.S.2d 834). Although defendant made specific challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the remaining charges after the People rested their case, he failed to renew that part of his motion at the close of his case and thus failed to preserve those challenges for our review ( see Hines, 97 N.Y.2d at 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).
We reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that trial counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that he was punished for asserting his right to a trial when the court imposed the maximum terms of incarceration ( see People v. Stubinger, 87 A.D.3d 1316, 1317, 929 N.Y.S.2d 813, lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 862, 938 N.Y.S.2d 869, 962 N.E.2d 294), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ). We conclude, moreover, that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.