| People v Hinkle |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08883 [56 AD3d 1210] |
| November 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Howard L.Hinkle, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Terrence M. Parker, District Attorney, Belmont (Keith A. Slep of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Allegany County Court (Thomas P. Brown, J.), renderedOctober 19, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attemptedassault in the second degree and resisting arrest.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of,inter alia, attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [3]).Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the pleaallocution with respect to that crime (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Farnsworth, 32 AD3d1176 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 867 [2006]; People v Abdallah, 23 AD3d 1116 [2005], lv denied 6NY3d 845 [2006]), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservationrule (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; Farnsworth, 32 AD3d 1176 [2006]). In anyevent, that challenge is without merit. Defendant entered an Alford plea with respect tothat crime, and "it is well settled that 'an Alford plea . . . does not involve arecitation of guilt' " (People vSmith, 26 AD3d 746, 747 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006], quotingPeople v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 487 [2002]). Defendant further contends that CountyCourt was unable to determine whether his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered becausethe prosecutor failed to state on the record the evidence against him in support of both crimes towhich he pleaded guilty. Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgmentof conviction and thus also failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Dille, 21 AD3d 1298[2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 882 [2005]; People v Ebert, 15 AD3d 781 [2005]). In any event, that contentionlacks merit as well. There is the requisite "strong record evidence of defendant's guilt" of bothcrimes to which defendant pleaded guilty (Ebert, 15 AD3d at 782), and the record furtherestablishes that defendant's Alford plea was "the product of a voluntary and rationalchoice" (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 475 [2000]). We have considereddefendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Scudder,P.J., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.