1 No. 65
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Charles Lineberger,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2002 NY Int. 71

   June 11, 2002

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Barbara Zolot, for appellant.
   Rona Feinberg, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

   During pretrial and trial proceedings, defendant successfully
   requested on two occasions that assigned counsel be relieved based on
   allegations of misfeasance or nonfeasance. After the unfavorable jury
   verdict, he adamantly refused the continued services of his third
   assigned attorney for sentencing and despite counsel's competence,
   defendant refused to cooperate with him. At a subsequent sentencing
   hearing, defendant obstinately refused to enter the courtroom after
   asserting that he had fired his attorney despite numerous requests and
   options proffered by the court. Defendant had been informed in
   unequivocal terms that the Trial Judge intended to sentence him that
   day.

   Defendant would have us impose an absolute rule by which trial courts
   must obtain right to counsel waivers in all circumstances or continue
   counsel. In this case, the sentencing court was presented with an
   impossible choice. Defendant refused to appear in court but was
   equally adamant through word and deed of his desire to rid himself of
   his third assigned attorney and represent himself. Had the court
   permitted counsel to continue to represent defendant against his
   wishes, it might have run afoul of the proscriptions of Faretta v
   California (422 US 806, 817) and People v Smith (, 68 NY2d 737,
   739, cert denied 479 US 953). Defendant cannot now rely upon the