People v. DunnPeople v. Dunn
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of arson in the third degree (
We reject defendant’s farther contention that County Court, sua sponte, should have ordered a competency evaluation (see, People v Wheeler, supra; see also, People v Carbone,
The contentions that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because he had a conflict of interest with his attorney and because the prosecutor improperly promised codefendants leniency in exchange for testimony against defendant are not reviewable on this record. The proper vehicle for raising such issues is a