People v. JordanPeople v. Jordan
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant‘s contentions, the Supreme Court, which was entitled to rely, inter alia, on its own observations of and interactions with the defendant, providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant‘s repeated applications for competency examinations (see
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent felony offender did not violate either his Sixth Amendment or due process rights (see People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001]). Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see