Opinion
September 30, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to order a second CPL 730.30 examination, sua sponte, during the trial, even though a pretrial CPL 730.30 examination led two psychiatrists to conclude that he was competent to stand trial. We disagree.
The test of competency is whether the defendant "`has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him'" (People v. Picozzi, 106 A.D.2d 413, citing Dusky v United States, 362 U.S. 402; see also, People v. Arnold, 113 A.D.2d 101, 102). If at any time before final judgment, the court has reasonable grounds to question the defendant's competency, it must order an examination, even if none is requested (see, CPL 730.30; People v. Gensler, 72 N.Y.2d 239, 246, cert denied 488 U.S. 932; People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 171).
Here, pursuant to a court order, two psychiatrists examined the defendant prior to trial and determined that he did not lack the capacity to understand the proceedings. Nothing occurred during the trial that suggested any changed circumstances indicating the defendant was no longer competent (see, People v. Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 337). In fact, while the defendant expressed certain bizarre beliefs during trial, he exhibited an understanding of the proceedings throughout. Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in not directing, on its own motion, an additional CPL 730.30 examination (see, People v Williams, 144 A.D.2d 402; People v. Allen, 135 A.D.2d 823; People v. Kestin, 134 A.D.2d 453; People v. Rios, 126 A.D.2d 860).
Moreover, after the trial and prior to sentencing, the defendant was again examined by a psychiatrist pursuant to CPL 390.30 (2). The psychiatrist found that, despite certain emotional problems, the defendant was competent to understand the criminal proceedings against him and was competent to be sentenced. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.