Opinion
June 8, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.).
Defendant's claim that his admissions at the plea proceeding did not establish his guilt of manslaughter in the first degree, and that the court therefore erred in denying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, not having been raised in defendant's pro se motion ( People v. Lee, 211 A.D.2d 563, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 864), and, we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the plea was valid notwithstanding that defendant did not admit the facts necessary to establish each and every element of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree in his allocution ( People v. Smith, 146 A.D.2d 828, 829, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 669). "[S]ince defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser crime than the one charged in the indictment, a factual basis for the plea was unnecessary" (People v. Moore, 71 N.Y.2d 1002, 1006), provided the record otherwise shows, as it does, that defendant understood the nature of the charges against him (supra, at 1005).
The sentence was not excessive in view of the violence of the crime committed, but should be modified as above indicated, it being clear from the plea minutes that the court inadvertently transposed the sentences it intended to impose on the two counts. A remand for clarification is unnecessary to correct this ministerial error ( People v. Wilkerson, 121 A.D.2d 284; People v Simmons, 205 A.D.2d 432).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.