People v. Joucoo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Joucoo

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

DecidedApril 2, 2026

DocketInd No. 2330/18|Appeal No. 6264|Case No. 2024-02558|

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Joucoo (People v. Joucoo) 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. Joucoo, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Joucoo - 2026 NY Slip Op 02044

skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Court Decisions Resources About

People v Joucoo

2026 NY Slip Op 02044

April 2, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Jesse Joucoo, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided and Entered: April 02, 2026

Ind No. 2330/18|Appeal No. 6264|Case No. 2024-02558|

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mendez, Pitt-Burke, Higgitt, Hagler, JJ.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Carola M. Beeney of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Julia Gorski of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), entered February 23, 2024, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, same court and Justice, rendered March 28, 2019, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's claim that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to negotiate a plea with more favorable immigration consequences is unsupported by the record. The claim that an immigration-favorable plea could have been reached had counsel asked is speculative (see People v Young, 150 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1136 [2017]), and the evidence submitted on the motion and testimony at the hearing failed to establish any reasonable probability that the People would have made such an offer (see Lafler v Cooper, 566 US 156, 163-164 [2012]; Young, 150 AD3d 429).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 2, 2026

People v Joucoo - 2026 NY Slip Op 02044

skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Court Decisions Resources About

People v Joucoo

2026 NY Slip Op 02044

April 2, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Jesse Joucoo, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided and Entered: April 02, 2026

Ind No. 2330/18|Appeal No. 6264|Case No. 2024-02558|

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mendez, Pitt-Burke, Higgitt, Hagler, JJ.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Carola M. Beeney of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Julia Gorski of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), entered February 23, 2024, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, same court and Justice, rendered March 28, 2019, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's claim that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to negotiate a plea with more favorable immigration consequences is unsupported by the record. The claim that an immigration-favorable plea could have been reached had counsel asked is speculative (see People v Young, 150 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1136 [2017]), and the evidence submitted on the motion and testimony at the hearing failed to establish any reasonable probability that the People would have made such an offer (see Lafler v Cooper, 566 US 156, 163-164 [2012]; Young, 150 AD3d 429).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 2, 2026