PEOPLE v. SCIVOLETTE (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered May 24, 2005, convicting him of forgery in the second degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The County Court properly denied the defendant's request to proceed pro se.   The request was made in the context of a claim of dissatisfaction with counsel and was not unequivocal (see People v. Mitchell, 26 A.D.3d 159, 160, 812 N.Y.S.2d 464;  People v. Hirschfeld, 282 A.D.2d 337, 338-339, 726 N.Y.S.2d 3, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 919, 732 N.Y.S.2d 636, 758 N.E.2d 662, cert. denied 534 U.S. 1082, 122 S.Ct. 816, 151 L.Ed.2d 699;  People v. Rainey, 240 A.D.2d 682, 683, 659 N.Y.S.2d 494).   Moreover, since the defendant, at proceedings which occurred subsequent to his request to proceed pro se, acted in a manner indicating his satisfaction with his counsel, he abandoned his request (see People v. Gillian, 28 A.D.3d 577, 816 N.Y.S.2d 84 aff'd 8 N.Y.3d 85, 828 N.Y.S.2d 277, 861 N.E.2d 92;  People v. Pena, 7 A.D.3d 259, 260, 776 N.Y.S.2d 37;  People v. Hirschfeld, supra at 339, 726 N.Y.S.2d 3).

 The County Court was not required to, sua sponte, conduct a competency hearing pursuant to CPL article 730.   A defendant is presumed to be competent, and the court was satisfied that, based on its interaction with the defendant and the available information, there was no basis for questioning the defendant's capacity to stand trial (see People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 765, 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. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878, 880, 638 N.Y.S.2d 942, 662 N.E.2d 260;  People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 459, 618 N.Y.S.2d 895, 643 N.E.2d 517;  People v. Mathis, 37 A.D.3d 212, 829 N.Y.S.2d 98).

The defendant's contention that a misdemeanor charge of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree was presented to the grand jury is belied by the minutes of the grand jury presentation.   Furthermore, any issues relating to proceedings occurring in the Justice Court of the Town of Poughkeepsie on the charge of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, a misdemeanor (see Penal Law § 165.40), are not properly before this court.   Such issues can only be reviewed on an appeal from a conviction of that crime to the Supreme Court, Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts (see CPL 450.60[3] ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either not properly before this court or without merit.