Majority
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant, who chose to defend himself pro se at his trial, contends on appeal that the trial court erred by allowing him to represent himself because he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right to counsel. We disagree. The record reveals that, at each of the various
We find that the trial court properly concluded, pursuant to CPL 65.30, that a witness was a vulnerable child warranting the use of two-way closed-circuit televised testimony out of the presence of defendant (see, CPL art 65; People v Cintron, 75 NY2d 249 ). We find no basis to modify the sentence imposed. The imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment was proper since these crimes involve disparate and distinct acts (see, People v Brathwaite, 63 NY2d 839 , 842-843; People v Barber, 162 AD2d 955 , lv denied 76 NY2d 937 ). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Houston, J.—Rape, 2nd Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. McIntyre 36 NY2d 10 at 17 p. 1028
- People v. Smith 68 NY2d 737 p. 1028
- Mustafa v. United States 479 US 953 p. 1028
- People v. Sawyer 57 NY2d 12 at 22 p. 1028
- John Cuneo, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 459 US 1178 p. 1028
- People v. Cintron 75 NY2d 249 p. 1028
- People v. Brathwaite 63 NY2d 839 at 842-843 p. 1028