People v. Guerrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Guerrero

126 A.D.3d 613, 3 N.Y.S.3d 600

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 2015

Docket14620 1762/05

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 613 (People v. Guerrero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Guerrero, 126 A.D.3d 613, 3 N.Y.S.3d 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered October 23, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term concurrent terms of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

After considering the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442 [1975]), we conclude that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see People v Bradberry, 68 AD3d 1688, 1690 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 838 [2010]). Although the 13-year delay was significant, it was explained by the People’s practical inability to prosecute defendant until they obtained his DNA sample from another ar *614 rest. The charges were very serious, and defendant has not established prejudice, particularly since, had he proceeded to trial, his guilt would have been established by DNA evidence.

Each of defendant’s remaining claims is forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]; People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000]), as well as being foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal. As an alternative holding, we reject defendant’s claims on the merits. The DNA indictment and its amendment to add the name of defendant once he was identified as the source of the DNA was proper (see People v Martinez, 52 AD3d 68 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 791 [2008]; see also People v Ogunmekan, 95 AD3d 701 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]), and defendant’s statute of limitations argument is unavailing (see CPL 30.10 [4] [a] [ii]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered October 23, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term concurrent terms of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

After considering the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442 [1975]), we conclude that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see People v Bradberry, 68 AD3d 1688, 1690 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 838 [2010]). Although the 13-year delay was significant, it was explained by the People’s practical inability to prosecute defendant until they obtained his DNA sample from another ar *614 rest. The charges were very serious, and defendant has not established prejudice, particularly since, had he proceeded to trial, his guilt would have been established by DNA evidence.

Each of defendant’s remaining claims is forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]; People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000]), as well as being foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal. As an alternative holding, we reject defendant’s claims on the merits. The DNA indictment and its amendment to add the name of defendant once he was identified as the source of the DNA was proper (see People v Martinez, 52 AD3d 68 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 791 [2008]; see also People v Ogunmekan, 95 AD3d 701 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]), and defendant’s statute of limitations argument is unavailing (see CPL 30.10 [4] [a] [ii]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 613, 3 N.Y.S.3d 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guerrero-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack