| People v Melendez |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01650 [48 AD3d 960] |
| February 28, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DonaldMelendez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles E. Inman, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols,J.), rendered May 9, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of drivingwhile intoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree andresisting arrest.
On April 21, 2005, defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He becamephysically combative after he was handcuffed and had to be restrained and forceably put into thepatrol car. As a result, defendant was charged in an indictment with driving while intoxicated,aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and resisting arrest. Theparties subsequently entered into a stipulation in lieu of motions which, among other things,provided that the prosecution would submit the grand jury minutes to County Court to ascertainthe legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the indictment and the adequacy of theinstructions given to the grand jury. Upon reviewing the grand jury minutes, County Courtconcluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the indictment and that theinstructions were adequate. While acknowledging that the prosecutor gave one erroneousinstruction and improperly characterized a witness's testimony during summation, County Courtnonetheless ruled that such errors did not compromise the integrity of the grand jury or prejudicethe result reached.[*2]
Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to the crimescharged in the indictment. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 1
Initially, defendant asserts that the grand jury minutes should be released to and reviewed bythis Court to determine if additional improprieties exist warranting the dismissal of theindictment. We note that the grand jury minutes have, in fact, been submitted to this Court for incamera review. Nevertheless, defendant, by his guilty plea, has waived his right to challenge thelegal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the indictment (see People v Dunbar, 53NY2d 868, 871 [1981]; People vWilliams, 25 AD3d 927, 929 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 840 [2006]). As for thematters that survive defendant's guilty plea, our review of the grand jury minutes does notdisclose the existence of irregularities involving jurisdictional or constitutional defects thatimplicate the integrity of the grand jury process (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227,231-233 [2000]; see generally CPL 210.30 [5]). Defendant's claim of prosecutorialmisconduct is unpreserved for our review and his remaining contentions are lacking in merit.
Peters, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.