Opinion
July 14, 1992
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Having been convicted upon a jury verdict of attempted manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, defendant argues on appeal that, given his history of mental problems and substance abuse, the court, sua sponte, should have inquired into defendant's fitness to proceed to trial. We disagree.
Defendant was represented by counsel, who made no request for a competency hearing. At no time during the trial did defense counsel articulate on the record that he was having difficulty communicating with defendant or that defendant was incapable of assisting in his own defense, nor is there any indication that defendant engaged in bizarre behavior at trial (see, People v Swan, 158 A.D.2d 158, 161, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 991). Moreover, the trial court is not obligated to order a competency hearing in every case where a defendant has a history of mental problems (see, People v. Sterling, 72 A.D.2d 611). Here, although defendant suffers from a personality disorder and periods of depression and may have been hospitalized on prior occasions, there is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that he was incompetent to stand trial (see, People v. Dudasik, 112 A.D.2d 20; cf., People v Arnold, 113 A.D.2d 101).
Considering the savage nature of the attack by defendant and the threat to innocent persons, the sentence imposed was justified.