Opinion
570721/14
11-02-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered May 1, 2014, affirmed.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for a CPL article 730 competency examination, which was made for the first time after the verdict (see Pate v Robinson , 383 US 375 [1966] ; People v Phillips , 16 NY3d 510, 517-518 [2011] ; People v Tortorici , 92 NY2d 757, 766 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999] ; People v Morgan , 87 NY2d 878, 881 [1995] ). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in failing to order, sua sponte, a competency hearing during the trial. The determination of whether to order a competency hearing lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see People v Tortorici , 92 NY2d at 766 ), and here, nothing in the record suggests that, because of a "mental disease or defect" ( CPL 730.10[1] ), defendant was unable to assist in his own defense or to understand the proceedings against him (see People v Rizzuto , 167 AD3d 531 [2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 980 [2019] ). On the contrary, the record shows that the self-represented defendant, who had the assistance of a legal advisor, actively and lucidly participated in pretrial proceedings and the trial (see People v McCray , 165 AD3d 595, 596 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1175 [2019] ), including, but not limited to, requesting additional discovery, making coherent opening and closing statements, making objections to testimony, some of which were sustained, cross-examining the People's witnesses, and making motions (see People v Jefferson , 74 AD3d 670 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 921 [2010] ; People v Mendez , 306 AD2d 143 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 622 [2003] ).
We also accord "substantial deference" ( People v Phillips , 16 NY3d 510, 517 [2011] ), to the court's conclusion that defendant's statement during jury selection that he "felt unfit" to proceed, along with the court's comment that defendant seemed "a little delirious," concerned an isolated incident where defendant stated that he failed to receive pain medication for his leg. On that occasion, the court halted the proceedings and communicated with the Department of Corrections to ensure that defendant received his medication. Defendant returned to court the next day stating that he had received his pain medication and was able to proceed. Thereafter, he actively participated in the proceedings without complaint, and as the court stated in denying defendant's posttrial motion, "was competent to stand trial."
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur