PEOPLE v. WILCOX (2007)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing sua sponte to order a competency hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30(1) and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on, inter alia, defense counsel's failure to request a hearing or to present evidence of defendant's “mental disease.”   We reject those contentions.   It is well settled that “[a] defendant is presumed competent ․, and the court is under no obligation to issue an order of examination ․ unless it has ‘reasonable ground ․ to believe that the defendant was an incapacitated person’ ” (People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878, 880, 638 N.Y.S.2d 942, 662 N.E.2d 260;  see People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 765-766, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87, cert. denied 528 U.S. 834, 120 S.Ct. 94, 145 L.Ed.2d 80;  People v. Williams, 35 A.D.3d 1273, 825 N.Y.S.2d 862, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 928, 834 N.Y.S.2d 519, 866 N.E.2d 465).   Here, defendant's responses to the court's questions during the plea colloquy were “appropriate, showing no indication of mental impairment requiring a competency hearing” (People v. Dover, 227 A.D.2d 804, 805, 642 N.Y.S.2d 438, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 984, 649 N.Y.S.2d 390, 672 N.E.2d 616), and the record otherwise is devoid of any evidence that defendant was mentally incompetent or suffered from mental disease.   Thus, to the extent that defendant's contention with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to request a hearing or to present evidence of defendant's alleged “mental disease” survives defendant's plea of guilty (see generally People v. Burke, 256 A.D.2d 1244, 682 N.Y.S.2d 650, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 851, 688 N.Y.S.2d 498, 710 N.E.2d 1097), we conclude that it is lacking in merit.

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the duration of the order of protection is proper inasmuch as it expires well within eight years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of defendant's sentence (see CPL 530.13[4] ).   Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for our review, or otherwise without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: