PEOPLE v. MORALES (2004)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[3] ).   We reject the contention of defendant that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to proceed pro se.   Defendant's motion was not made prior to the commencement of trial and thus was untimely (see People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17, 364 N.Y.S.2d 837, 324 N.E.2d 322).  “Once the trial has begun the right [to proceed pro se] is severely constricted and will be granted in the trial court's discretion and only in compelling circumstances” (id.).   No compelling circumstances were established herein.   Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court's Sandoval ruling, pursuant to which the court allowed the People to cross-examine defendant with respect to prior robbery and burglary convictions, did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see People v. Thompson, 295 A.D.2d 917, 918, 743 N.Y.S.2d 764, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 772, 752 N.Y.S.2d 13, 781 N.E.2d 925;  People v. Freeney, 291 A.D.2d 913, 914, 737 N.Y.S.2d 751, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 637, 744 N.Y.S.2d 766, 771 N.E.2d 839).   Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for our review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919), and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.   Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: