Alford pleas are -- and should be -- rare.[1] Indeed, in some jurisdictions they are not permitted at all (see, e.g., State v Davis, 561 A2d 1082, 1097 [NJ] [a guilty plea cannot be accepted unless the defendant acknowledges guilt]; Ross v State, 456 NE2d 420, 423 [Ind] [same]; see also, Steven E. Walburn, Should the Military Adopt an Alford-Type Guilty Plea?, 44 Air Force L Rev 119, 120 [noting that Alford pleas are not recognized in military justice system]).

In New York, such a plea is allowed only when, as in Alford itself, it is the product of a voluntary and rational choice, and the record before the court contains strong evidence of actual guilt (see, e.g., People v Miller, , 91 NY2d 372, 377; People v Francabandera, , 33 NY2d 429, 438 [a defendant suffering amnesia could not honestly confess guilt, but could voluntarily plead to a lesser charge in the face of overwhelming evidence of his culpability]; see also, People v Foster, , 39 NY2d 463, 466 [upholding plea lacking an admission that defendant committed the criminal act as falling “squarely within the type of plea sanctioned in North Carolina v Alford”]).

While Alford pleas are rare, from the State's perspective they are no different from other guilty pleas; it would otherwise be unconscionable for a court to sentence an individual to a term of imprisonment. In fact, this Court has recognized that an Alford plea may generally be used for the same purposes as any other conviction (People v Miller, supra, 91 NY2d, at 378 [allowing cross-examination of a defendant for impeachment purposes about previous conviction resulting from Alford plea]). Like any other guilty plea, it may be used as a predicate for civil and criminal penalties (see, Matter of Hopfl, , 48 NY2d 859, 860 [felony conviction pursuant to an Alford plea may serve as basis for attorney's disbarment]; see also, People v Geier, 144 AD2d 1015, 1016 [conviction based on an Alford plea may be used in determining predicate felon status for sentencing]; People v J.G., 171 Misc 2d 440, 446, 453 [defendant who was convicted of third degree rape by way of Alford plea is subject to consequences of classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act and submitting to HIV test). An Alford plea may also foreclose opportunities for relief on appeal (see, People v Green, , 75 NY2d 902, 904-905 [after taking an Alford plea, a defendant forfeited his right to challenge a claimed Batson violation]).

Petitioner's argument hinges on the assumption that acceptance of an Alford plea implies a promise by the State that an inmate will never have to acknowledge responsibility for the crime. The court's acceptance of his plea without an admission of culpability was not an indication that the State viewed him as innocent. On the contrary, petitioner's plea resulted in a conviction of guilt based on strong record evidence that he actually committed the crime charged. The State considered petitioner guilty of the crime. Nor was there any promise that petitioner would be treated as “innocent” by the Parole Board. Indeed, there could not be, because under our system a court may initially set a minimum period of incarceration, but the Parole Board makes the ultimate determination whether to release an inmate (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, , 50 NY2d 69, 77). Petitioner received the benefit of his negotiated plea when he was not required to admit to the specific facts of the crime before the court.

Our jurisprudence also is well settled as to the authority of the Parole Board. Judicial intervention is warranted only when there is a “showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety” (see, Matter of Russo, supra, 50 NY2d, at 77; Matter of Briguglio v Board of Parole, , 24 NY2d 21, 29). Thus, we review whether the Board's decision to deny parole was arbitrary or capricious.

In New York, the Parole Board holds the power to decide whether to release a sentenced prisoner on parole. The Board follows the legislative mandate of ensuring that the prospective parolee “will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his [or her] release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of [the] crime as to undermine respect for law” (Executive Law § 259-i[2][c][A]). Moreover, “[d]iscretionary release on parole shall not be granted merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties while confined” (id.). Rather, when, as here, the sentence has been set by the court, the Board must consider the seriousness of the offense (with consideration of the sentence, the pre-sentence report, mitigating and aggravating factors, and activities after arrest and prior to confinement) and the inmate's prior criminal record (Executive Law §§ 259-i[1][a], [2][c][A]).

In every case, the Board must additionally consider the inmate's institutional record (vocational education, training or work assignments, therapy), performance in any temporary release program, release plans, any deportation order issued by the federal government, and any statement to the Board by victims or their representative (Executive Law § 259-i[2][c][A]). While consideration of these guidelines is mandatory, the ultimate decision to parole a prisoner is discretionary (Tarter v State of New York, , 68 NY2d 511, 517-518 [noting that the functions of the Board, in fitting the inmate's factual circumstances within the guidelines and using discretion to dispose of the matter, are classically judicial tasks]; see also, Matter of King v New York State Div. of Parole, , 83 NY2d 788, 791 [the Board must provide an inmate with a proper hearing in which only the relevant guidelines are considered]).

We conclude that it was neither arbitrary nor capricious for the Board to consider remorse and insight into the offense following petitioner's Alford plea. These factors, we recognize, are not enumerated in the statute. However, the Board is empowered to deny parole where it concludes that release is incompatible with the welfare of society. Thus, there is a strong rehabilitative component in the statute that may be given effect by considering remorse and insight (see, e.g., Matter of Dudley v Brown, 227 AD2d 863 [lack of remorse and prior mental illness history appropriate when taken together because they relate directly to statutory standards]; Matter of Bockeno v New York State Parole Bd., 227 AD2d 751 [appropriate to consider lack of remorse, nature of crime, failure to participate in sex offender counseling and vulnerability of victims]; Matter of Walker v New York State Div. of Parole, 203 AD2d 757 [lack of remorse properly considered with seriousness of crime and failure to attend violent behavior modification programs]). Additionally, once an individual has been convicted of a crime, it is generally not the Board's role to reevaluate a claim of innocence, either by someone who maintains innocence in the face of a guilty verdict, or by someone who allocutes to the facts but later claims to be innocent.

At petitioner's parole hearing, the Board was required to assess whether he presented a danger to the community, or whether there was a reasonable probability that he could live at liberty without repeating his offense. Petitioner's inmate status report indicated the necessity of domestic violence treatment. The factors of remorse and insight were especially relevant because petitioner was a productive citizen and model prisoner who enthusiastically engaged in educational and vocational programs, taught other prisoners and wrote about prison life, and who nevertheless, in the eyes of the law, brutally killed his wife. Since discretionary release may not be granted merely as a reward for exemplary conduct, the Board evaluated petitioner's rehabilitative progress to determine if he still posed a danger, and in that connection properly considered remorse and insight into the criminal act.[3]

We conclude that petitioner's personal refusal to admit the specific facts of the crime at the time of the Alford plea did not constrain the Parole Board's ensuing responsibility to confirm, within a reasonable probability, that petitioner is ready to rejoin the community. This is so for a convicted defendant who maintains innocence at and after trial, for a defendant who allocutes to the facts but later declares his innocence, and it is also the case here. Petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.