Opinion
KA 02-00128
December 30, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brunetti, J.), entered November 13, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (SHIRLEY K. DUFFY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. ANTHONY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, HURLBUTT, BURNS, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25). Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court did not err in failing sua sponte to order a competency hearing where, as here, nothing in the record raises a "`reasonable ground * * * to believe that the defendant was an incapacitated person'" ( People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878, 880, quoting People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 168; see also CPL 730.30; People v. Carbonel, 296 A.D.2d 858). Furthermore, "`[t]here is no indication in the record that defendant was mentally incompetent at the time he entered his guilty plea' or at sentencing" ( Carbonel, 296 A.D.2d at 858, quoting People v. Dover, 227 A.D.2d 804, 805, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 984). We further reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v. Shumway, 295 A.D.2d 916, 917). In any event, that contention lacks merit. The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.