Defendant was convicted of the offense of burglary and sentenced to serve a term of 20 years. Following the denial of his motion for new trial he appeals. Held:

Defendant has enumerated error in that he was excluded from the courtroom during his trial (including the sentencing phase) in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States, the same occurring during his involuntary absence from the courtroom. The remaining enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in failing to hold a pre-sentence hearing in compliance with former Code Ann. 27-2503 (Ga. L. 1974, pp. 352, 357) (now OCGA 17-10-2, effective November 1, 1982).

With reference to the first enumeration of error it is quite apparent that the defendant became so disruptive in his behavior, that is, behaving in such a manner as to be so disorderly, disruptive and disrespectful to the court until the trial could not be carried on with him in the courtroom. Under Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337, 338-343 (90 SC 1057, 25 LE2d 353), the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a defendant can lose his right to be present at his trial by contumacious conduct, generally requiring a warning by the judge that he would be removed if he continues his disruptive behavior. The Allen case points out three constitutional ways to handle an obstreperous and contumacious defendant: (1) keep him present, bound and gagged, if necessary; (2) cite him for contempt, and (3) remove him from the courtroom, while the trial continues, until such time as he evinces a willingness to conduct himself properly. In Simmons v. State, 161 Ga. App. 527 (1) (288 SE2d 868), we affirmed in a similar situation to the case sub judice where the defendant's "own conduct made the progress of the trial practically impossible in her continued presence," holding that it was not an abuse of the court's discretion to remove her from the courtroom.

In the case sub judice, the trial was practically over, and, indeed, the only evidence further considered was that of rebuttal testimony with reference to the defendant's mental condition which might or might not have resulted in his obstreperous conduct. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion with reference to his removal from the courtroom during the trial resulting in his conviction.

J. Lane Johnston, District Attorney, for appellee.