DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency hearing is without merit (see, CPL 730.30; People v. Tertorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, cert denied U.S. 120 Sup Ct 94). The determination as to whether to order a competency hearing is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant is incapable of preparing a defense or of understanding the proceedings or the charges against him, then a hearing must be ordered (see, People v. Simmons, 182 A.D.2d 1018, 1019; People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 171). Otherwise, a "presumption of sanity" prevails (People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 459) which cannot be rebutted by a mere showing that the defendant has a history of mental illness (see, People v. Gelikkaya, supra; People v. Gensler, 72 N.Y.2d 239, 244, cert denied 488 U.S. 932; People v. Dover, 227 A.D.2d 804, 805).
Here, the defendant did not exhibit any delusional thinking during the trial. Rather, the defendant gave testimony in a rational manner, and understood the role of his attorney and the other participants at trial. Moreover, he was found by two psychiatrists to be fit to stand trial.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, THOMPSON and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.