Opinion
August 22, 1991
Appeal from the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.).
We find no merit to defendant's contentions that his rights were violated when he was allowed to continue to proceed pro se at trial and when he was sentenced in absentia. Not only did County Court conduct a thorough inquiry and clearly advise defendant of the hazards of proceeding pro se at the time defendant made his application to do so, but the court continued to so advise defendant at various times during the course of the trial when his conduct suggested that he might be harming himself by continuing to proceed in his own defense (see, People v Vivenzio, 62 N.Y.2d 775; People v McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 14, 17-18). At all times defendant unequivocally responded that he wanted to continue to proceed pro se (see, People v Lee, 116 A.D.2d 590). Furthermore, defendant voluntarily lost his right to be present at sentencing when he refused to appear (see, People v Corley, 67 N.Y.2d 105, 109-110; Matter of Root v Kapelman, 67 A.D.2d 131, 135, lv denied 47 N.Y.2d 706). defendant's contention that he was confused as to the correct sentencing date is belied by the fact that he was advised of the date at the end of the trial (see, People v Christopher R., 135 A.D.2d 584, 584-585, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 959). We have examined defendant's remaining contention and also find it lacking in merit.
Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.