Per Curiam
Mejicanos appealed from a judgment convicting him, upon a guilty plea, of fifth degree criminal possession of marijuana. He challenged the facial sufficiency, and the panel noted such arguments were jurisdictional, thus his claim was not forfeited upon a guilty plea. The arresting officer claimed he observed Mejicanos on a public roadway and in possession of marijuana which was open to public view. The officer alleged he recovered it from the back seat of the car in which Mejicanos was sitting. The panel agreed with Mejicanos that such allegations were insufficient to support the charge, noting other than the officer's conclusory assertion the marijuana was open to public view, nothing in the accusatory instrument supported an inference that any other member of the public could have also seen the marijuana from the same vantage point. Thus, without any allegations how the marijuana was open to public view, it could not be said the complaint was facially sufficient, the conviction was reversed, and the accusatory instrument dismissed. The dissent voted to affirm the judgment finding the allegations supported the inference that any member of the public could have also seen the marijuana from the same vantage point as the officer as it was allegedly in an unconcealed area of the car.
