Bradford, J.
Following closing arguments during the enhancement phase of the trial, an outburst occurred between Wilson and members of the gallery. Court: For the record, we – during that small outburst starting with those in the audience, Mr. Wilson also had an outburst, he struggled with my bailiffs, he yelled out a few words of profanity, directed those to members of the audience. He’s been escorted out. He is – I think he at this point, he has waived his right, his opportunity to be here during this phase of the trial. We will proceed without him given his conduct at this point. Tr. p. 708. After the outburst, the trial court held a hearing on whether Wilson should be held contempt. Wilson then engaged in the following exchange with the court:
Court: Mr. Wilson, you had quite an incredible outburst just now….I’ll give you one opportunity to try to explain yourself before I decide whether I should hold you in contempt of court.
* * *
Wilson: Well, seeing they (inaudible.) Y’all don’t see that, though, do y’all? Y’all don’t see that, though, right? I got nothing to say. Charge me with what you want. Court: All right. I hold you in contempt. Wilson: That’s cool. Shake your hand for it? Court: Pardon me? Wilson: F*** a appeal. Court: Oh, no, no, no. I hold you in contempt….I think you forfeited your right to be a part of this case, for this last phase of the trial. Wilson: That’s cool, too. Send me back. I’m tired. I need to sleep.
Tr. p. 711-12. The trial court allowed Wilson to return for the sentencing hearing after he agreed to and did write a letter of apology.
Wilson argues that the trial court’s decision to exclude him from trial was erroneous because the trial court did not first warn Wilson that he could be removed for being disruptive and instead removed him immediately following his first and only outburst. Wilson cites to Perry and Allen where the defendants were disruptive several times throughout trial and were first warned before they were ultimately removed from the courtroom. Perry v. State, 471 N.E.2d 270, 275 (Ind. 1984); Allen, 397 U.S. at 340.
We find that the trial court was within its discretion to remove Wilson from the courtroom. Unlike the cases cited above, Wilson not only used profanity and generally disrupted the proceedings, but also became physical with the bailiffs. Furthermore, he continued to exhibit contumacious behavior in the contempt hearing, used profanity directed at the court, and agreed with the trial court’s decision to exclude him from the trial. These actions amount to a waiver of Wilson’s sixth amendment and Article I, Section 13 rights. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Wilson from a portion of the trial.
Vaidik, C.J., and Kirsch, J., concur.