| People v Coxon |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05719 [130 AD3d 1098] |
| July 2, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMichael Coxon, Appellant. |
Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.
Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (James A. Carlucci of counsel), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County(Nichols, J.), rendered November 12, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crime of failure to register as a sex offender.
After defendant neglected to register his change of address within 10 days ofmoving, he was charged in a felony complaint with failure to register as a sex offender.Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guiltyto a superior court information charging him with failure to register as a sex offender andwaived his right to appeal. County Court agreed to sentence defendant to no more thanone year in jail, but warned him that a greater sentence was possible if he failed to appearfor sentencing. Thereafter, defendant failed to appear for sentencing, prompting CountyCourt to sentence defendant in abstentia to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendantappeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that County Court did not acquirejurisdiction to conduct the plea hearing. Although defendant points to the fact that therecord does not indicate, among other things, that the matter was held over for grand juryaction, "the transfer of [his] case to County Court is evidence that he was held by a localcriminal court for grand jury action, and a mere void in the record is insufficient toestablish his claim" that the statutory requirements were not met (People v Simmons, 110 AD3d1371, 1372 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Additionally, therecord establishes that defendant not only waived a preliminary hearing, but signed awaiver of indictment in open court, which was consented to by the People, whereuponCounty Court executed an order approving waiver of indictment. Given the presumptionof regularity accorded to judicial proceedings and the lack of [*2]any evidence by defendant to rebut that presumption, wefind the waiver of indictment to be valid (see People v Simmons, 110 AD3d at1372-1373; People vHauenstein, 106 AD3d 1339, 1339-1340 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d1042 [2013]).
Defendant's contention that the enhanced sentence is harsh and excessive is notbarred under the terms of his appeal waiver; nevertheless, we find it to be withoutmerit.
Garry, J.P., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.