29 A.D.3d 1022
N.Y. App. Div.
2006

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CELINES RAMIREZ, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

815 NYS2d 480

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered May 25, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that she had violated a condition thereof, upon her admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that her admission to violating a condition of her probation was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636 [1983]; People v Carden, 27 AD3d 573 [2006]; People v Eherts, 21 AD3d 905 [2005]; People v Padilla, 18 AD3d 578 [2005]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily admitted that she violated a condition of her probation (see People v Carden, supra; People v Padilla, supra; People v Melvin, 274 AD2d 435 [2000]). Moreover, the court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing since the defendant responded appropriately to the court’s inquiries, and there is no evidence that she lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against her (see People v Matos, 27 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]; People v Pryor, 11 AD3d 565 [2004]; People v Gomez, 256 AD2d 356 [1998]; People v Hollis, 204 AD2d 569 [1994]).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly sentenced her on the violation of probation without obtaining an updated presentence report is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gambichler, 25 AD3d 722 [2006]; People v Freeman, 2 AD3d 648 [2003]; People v Ortega, 1 AD3d 533 [2003]), and in any event, is without merit (see People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278 [1994]; People v Fernandez, 7 AD3d 886 [2004]; People v Ortega, supra; People v Viruet, 288 AD2d 407 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman and Lunn, JJ., concur.