| People v Wilburn |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00863 [158 AD3d 894] |
| February 8, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Winston T. Wilburn, Appellant. |
Robert W. Linville, Public Defender, Hudson (Michael C. Howard of counsel), forappellant.
Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (James A. Carlucci of counsel), for respondent.
Pritzker, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.),rendered May 13, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminalpossession of stolen property in the fourth degree.
In October 2014, defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession ofstolen property in the fourth degree. He thereafter filed an omnibus motion seeking, among otherthings, dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jurywas not legally sufficient to establish criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Inthe motion, defendant also requested that County Court review the grand jury minutes to assessthe sufficiency of the evidence presented and that he be provided a copy of the minutes. OnFebruary 10, 2015, County Court granted the motion, to the extent that it agreed to review thegrand jury minutes, but reserved judgment on the remainder of the motion pending that review.On February 20, 2015, prior to County Court rendering a decision regarding the review of thegrand jury minutes, defendant pleaded guilty as charged in the indictment. He was subsequentlysentenced, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 8
We affirm. Initially, defendant's contention that the indictment was jurisdictionally [*2]defective is without merit. Inasmuch as the counts of the indictmentrecited the specific sections of the Penal Law under which defendant was charged, the indictmentwas not jurisdictionally defective (seePeople v Rapp, 133 AD3d 979, 980 [2015]; People v Moon, 119 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2014], lv denied 24NY3d 1004 [2014]). As to the claim that the evidence presented to the grand jury regarding thecriminal possession of a weapon charge did not establish that the firearm in question was loadedor operable, "defendant's guilty plea foreclosed his right to challenge the legal sufficiency of thegrand jury evidence" (People vWilliams, 25 AD3d 927, 929 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 840 [2006]; see People v Cook, 150 AD3d1543, 1544 [2017]). Finally, although defendant also claims that the People unreasonablydelayed providing the grand jury minutes to County Court in order to hide the insufficiency of theevidence presented to the grand jury, this issue does not relate to jurisdictional matters or torights of a constitutional dimension. Accordingly, it is also forfeited by defendant's guilty plea(see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]; People v McCommons, 119 AD3d 1085, 1085 [2014]).
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.