People v. Spiers

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Burns, J.), entered May 13, 1999, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court failed to conduct the requisite searching inquiry before allowing him to waive the right to counsel and to proceed pro se (see generally People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101 , 103-104). Defendant, however, neither waived his right to counsel nor proceeded pro se. Rather, defendant participated in his own defense while being represented by counsel. Although a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation (see People v Rodriguez, 95 NY2d 497 , 501; People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383 , 390; People v Mirenda, 57 NY2d 261 , 265), it is within the trial court’s sound discretion whether to allow such hybrid representation (see Rodriguez, 95 NY2d at 502 ). Where, as here, defendant “asks only to participate in the defense, * * * there is no relinquishment of the right to counsel and no determination to represent one’s self’ (People v Cabassa, 79 NY2d 722 , 730, cert denied sub nom. Lind v New York, 506 US 1011 ; see People v Rodriguez, 98 AD2d 961 , 962-963, cert denied 469 US 818 ). Thus, the court was not required to conduct a searching inquiry pursuant to Arroyo ( 98 NY2d at 103-104 ). We reject the further contention of defendant that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 , 147). In light of defendant’s lengthy criminal history, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Gorski, JJ.