Opinion
December 24, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant, by his plea of guilty, waived his right to challenge the geographical jurisdiction to prosecute the instant indictment in Queens County (see People v. Amato, 101 A.D.2d 890; People v Ebron, 116 Misc.2d 774). In any event, the facts at bar establish that overt acts occurred within Queens County sufficient to establish a conspiracy to criminally possess stolen property. Accordingly, Queens County's assertion of jurisdiction in this matter was proper (CPL 20.40, subd 1, par [b]; see, also, People v. Botta, 100 A.D.2d 311).
We also find that defendant, by pleading guilty, forfeited his claim that the Assistant District Attorney's instructions to the Grand Jury concerning venue were improper (see People v Whitney, 93 A.D.2d 944).
Furthermore, defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge than that contained in the indictment with the understanding that he would receive a term of probation. Under the circumstances, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence of three years' probation (see People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). O'Connor, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.