| People v Hauenstein |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03712 [106 AD3d 1339] |
| May 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vEdward Hauenstein, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard J. McNally Jr., District Attorney, Troy (Roman Griffith of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Jacon, J.),rendered June 17, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.
Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, defendant waived indictment and pleadedguilty to a superior court information charging him with criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fourth degree. At sentencing, defendant's motion to withdraw his plea wasdenied and defendant was thereafter sentenced, as agreed, to a prison term of 1½ to3 years and restitution in the amount of $320. Defendant now appeals.
We disagree with defendant's argument that County Court improperly denied hismotion to withdraw his guilty plea, as the record reflects that defendant's plea was in allrespects knowing and voluntary (see People v Wilson, 92 AD3d 981, 981 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 1029 [2012]; People v Shurock, 83 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2011]).Defendant's contention that the waiver of indictment and superior court information uponwhich he was prosecuted were invalid due to the absence of record evidence that a localcriminal court held him over for grand jury action is also unavailing (see CPL195.10). The record reflects that defendant was arraigned in the Pittstown Town Courtand sent to the Rensselaer County jail without bail. The case was [*2]transferred to County Court, indicating that defendant hadbeen held for action by the grand jury, and County Court's order approving the waiver ofindictment states that there was compliance with CPL 195.10. Moreover, during the pleaproceedings, County Court advised defendant of the rights he was giving up by waivingindictment and proceeding on a superior court information. Given the presumption ofregularity accorded to judicial proceedings and defendant's failure to submit any prooftending to rebut that presumption, we conclude that the waiver of indictment was valid(see People v Davis, 84AD3d 1645, 1646 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 815 [2011]; People v Dennis, 66 AD3d1058, 1058-1059 [2009]; People v Barber, 280 AD2d 691, 692-693 [2001],lv denied 96 NY2d 825 [2001]).
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.