Opinion
570044/20
02-22-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Zhi Li, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Marisol Martinez Alonso, J.), rendered December 16, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Brigantti, Silvera, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (Marisol Martinez Alonso, J.), rendered December 16, 2019, affirmed.
Our review of the record demonstrates that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375 [2015]). Under the facts presented, the court was not required to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into defendant's mental condition. Defendant had been found competent following proceedings under CPL article 730 five days before the plea, and was rational and coherent throughout the plea proceedings, wherein he capably responded to the questions put to him, and gave no indication of mental impairment (see People v Ward, 168 A.D.3d 432 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 955 [2019]; People v Osman, 151 A.D.3d 494 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 982 [2017]). Defense counsel, who was in the best position to assess defendant's capacity, did not raise the issue of defendant's fitness to proceed or request another examination (see People v Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 767 [1999], cert denied 528 U.S. 834 [1999]; People v Ragin, 136 A.D.3d 426 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1074 [2016]).
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the plea was defective, the only relief defendant requests is vacatur of his conviction and the dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by remanding the matter to Criminal Court, dismissal is not warranted and we affirm on this basis (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 385 n).
Defendant's contention that the plea was invalid because the court failed to advise him of the duration of the conditional discharge is unpreserved (see People v Torres, 37 N.Y.3d 256, 265 [2021]), and, in any event, without merit (see People v Kidd, 105 A.D.3d 1267 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1005 [2013]; People v Kripanidhi, 59 Misc.3d 148[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 938 [2018]).
All concur.