Opinion
June 9, 1995
Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Purple, Jr., J.
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15), a class B felony. We reject defendant's contention that items of physical evidence seized by police should have been suppressed as the product of an illegal stop not supported by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (see, People v. Willsey, 198 A.D.2d 911, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 812). The record does not support defendant's contention that the guilty plea was involuntarily obtained. Despite defendant's professed inability to recall the events underlying the robbery charge, the record of the plea allocution establishes that defendant knowingly waived a possible intoxication defense (cf., People v. Bartleson, 142 A.D.2d 953; People v. Braman, 136 A.D.2d 382, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 911) and that his "plea `represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open'" (People v. Di Paola, 143 A.D.2d 487, 488, quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31). There is no merit to the contention that defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel (see generally, People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021; People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.