PEOPLE v. MURRAY (1998)

 We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in failing sua sponte to order a competency examination pursuant to CPL 730.30(1) before accepting the guilty plea.   Although the record of the plea proceeding establishes that defendant was receiving psychiatric care and taking prescribed medications, it also establishes that defendant was “lucid, rational, and unequivocal in assuring the court that he understood the meaning of the plea proceeding, and the implications of his decision to accept the plea agreement” (People v. Helm, 178 A.D.2d 656, 577 N.Y.S.2d 889;  see, People v. Cummings, 194 A.D.2d 994, 995, 599 N.Y.S.2d 661, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 752, 603 N.Y.S.2d 994, 624 N.E.2d 180;  People v. Smith, 163 A.D.2d 913, 914, 559 N.Y.S.2d 845, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 944, 563 N.Y.S.2d 73, 564 N.E.2d 683).

 We further reject defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution.   After defendant initially denied that he committed attempted burglary, the court inquired further and defendant admitted his guilt.   Thus, the court fulfilled its duty to make further inquiry, and the record establishes that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently (see, People v. Brow, 255 A.D.2d 904, 682 N.Y.S.2d 320 [decided herewith];  People v. Howard, 234 A.D.2d 1000, 1001, 652 N.Y.S.2d 450, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1036, 659 N.Y.S.2d 867, 681 N.E.2d 1314;  People v. Waterman, 229 A.D.2d 1013, 1013-1014, 645 N.Y.S.2d 666).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: