People v Guerrero
2015 NY Slip Op 02435 [126 AD3d 613]
March 24, 2015
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 29, 2015


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Lerio Guerrero, Appellant.

Glenn A. Garber, P.C., New York (Glenn A. Garber of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi-Levi of counsel),for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), renderedOctober 23, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the firstdegree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, robbery inthe first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencinghim 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 aspeedy trial (see People vBradberry, 68 AD3d 1688, 1690 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 838[2010]). Although the 13-year delay was significant, it was explained by the People'spractical inability to prosecute defendant until they obtained his DNA sample fromanother arrest. The charges were very serious, and defendant has not establishedprejudice, particularly since, had he proceeded to trial, his guilt would have beenestablished by DNA evidence.

Each of defendant's remaining claims is forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Konieczny, 2NY3d 569, 575 [2004]; People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000]), aswell as being foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal. As an alternativeholding, we reject defendant's claims on the merits. The DNA indictment and itsamendment to add the name of defendant once he was identified as the source of theDNA was proper (see People v Martinez, [*2]52AD3d 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]), anddefendant'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.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.