Opinion
Argued September 22, 2000
October 30, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered September 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent (see, People v. Smith, 92 N.Y.2d 516, 520; People v. Slaughter, 78 N.Y.2d 485, 491; People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 21, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178). The trial court undertook a sufficiently searching inquiry of the defendant to be reasonably certain that the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel were impressed upon him (see, People v. Smith, supra, at 520; People v. Slaughter, supra, at 491; People v. Sawyer, supra, at 21). Further, the trial court apprised the defendant of the risks and dangers of self-representation, and thus properly granted his request to proceed pro se (see, People v. Vivenzio, 62 N.Y.2d 775; People v. El, 250 A.D.2d 395).
The defendant's challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to a jury trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Magnano, 77 N.Y.2d 941, affg 158 A.D.2d 979, cert denied 502 U.S. 864; People v. Garcia, 269 A.D.2d 464; People v. Wheeler, 258 A.D.2d 542; People v. Ospina, 192 A.D.2d 680). In any event, the written waiver form executed by the defendant and his statements on the record demonstrate that the jury waiver was valid (see, People v. Wheeler, supra; People v. Ospina, supra).
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.