DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request a competency examination to determine his capacity to assist in his own defense. However, there is no basis to conclude that at the time of admission to the violation of probation, the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the proceeding against him or to assist in his own defense ( see CPL 730.10; People v. Rivas, 206 A.D.2d 549; People v. Johnston, 186 A.D.2d 680; People v. Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 337). The defendant responded coherently and rationally during the proceeding and indicated that he understood the implications of his decision to waive his right to a hearing. The record as a whole reveals that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The imposition of the minimum term of incarceration was not excessive in light of the defendant's violation of probation ( see People v. Knowles, 244 A.D.2d 425).
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, ADAMS and RIVERA, JJ., concur.