| People v Hill |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07044 [66 AD3d 1471] |
| October 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hadji S. Hill,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered April12, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the firstdegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofmanslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that his pleawas not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered because, during the plea colloquy, heraised a possible justification defense and negated the intent element of the crime. Evenassuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved those contentions for our review by his pro semotion to withdraw the plea, we conclude that they are lacking in merit. First, we conclude thatCounty Court conducted the requisite further inquiry to ensure that "there was no possibility of ajustification defense" (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 668 [1988]; see People v Winchester, 38 AD3d1336, 1337 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 853 [2007]). Second, with respect to thecontention of defendant that he negated the intent element of the crime during the plea colloquy,we note that, when defendant failed to admit that he intended to cause the victim to sustain aserious physical injury, the court conducted what was in effect a limited Alford colloquywith respect to the intent element, thus rendering unnecessary an admission of intent bydefendant. The People marshaled the evidence concerning defendant's intent to cause seriousphysical injury, defendant acknowledged that evidence, and then voluntarily entered the plea. "'[A]n Alford plea may only be allowed when it is the product of a voluntary and rationalchoice and there is strong evidence of defendant's guilt before the court' " (People v Ryan, 59 AD3d 751,751-752 [2009]). Here, although the plea was not expressly characterized as an Alfordplea, both of those conditions were met in this case, and it cannot be said that defendant"failed to appreciate that his responses to County Court's inquiries would, in fact, constitute aplea of guilty" (id. at 751; see generally Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d470, 475 [2000]; People v Spulka, 285 AD2d 840, 841 [2001], lv denied 97NY2d 643 [2001]; People v Davis, 197 AD2d 921 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d848 [1993]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Green and Gorski, JJ.