People v. Albert

Decision Date27 April 2018
Docket NumberKA 16–00130,223
Citation160 A.D.3d 1377,73 N.Y.S.3d 917 (Mem)
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cishahayo ALBERT, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

160 A.D.3d 1377
73 N.Y.S.3d 917 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Cishahayo ALBERT, Defendant–Appellant.

223
KA 16–00130

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: April 27, 2018


D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JASON A. MACBRIDE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

73 N.Y.S.3d 918

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon an Alford plea of rape in the third degree ( Penal Law § 130.25[3] ). Defendant contends that County Court erred in accepting his Alford plea because the record does not contain the requisite strong evidence of guilt, establish that the plea was the product of a voluntary and rational choice, or demonstrate his true understanding of the nature of the Alford plea and its consequences. Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve those contentions for our review (see People v. Dixon, 147 A.D.3d 1518, 1518–1519, 47 N.Y.S.3d 617 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1078, 64 N.Y.S.3d 167, 86 N.E.3d 254 [2017] ; People v. Elliott, 107 A.D.3d 1466, 1466, 965 N.Y.S.2d 899 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 996, 981 N.Y.S.2d 2, 3 N.E.3d 1170 [2013] ). Defendant further contends that preservation is not required because the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered inasmuch as he made statements during the plea proceeding that were inconsistent with guilt and the court failed to conduct the requisite "further inquiry" ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ). We conclude that preservation is required because the "record indicated strong evidence of guilt and the court was not required to do more than it did to ensure that defendant voluntarily entered the plea" ( People v....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT