People v. Guerrero, No. 145 (N.Y. Oct. 27, 2016)

A guilty plea generally forfeits the right to challenge non-jurisdictional defects in the indictment, including the sufficiency of evidence before the grand jury and challenges to the way the indictment was amended.

Summary

Lerio Guerrero was indicted by a “DNA indictment,” where his DNA profile served as an identifier. He later pleaded guilty to the amended indictment, which added his name. He argued on appeal that the DNA indictment was based on insufficient evidence and that the amendment was improperly based on hearsay. The New York Court of Appeals held that Guerrero forfeited his right to challenge the indictment’s sufficiency and the hearsay used to amend it by pleading guilty. The court distinguished between jurisdictional defects, which survive a guilty plea, and non-jurisdictional defects, which do not. The Court found that the defects raised by Guerrero were non-jurisdictional.

Facts

In 1998, a woman was attacked and sexually assaulted. The perpetrator’s DNA profile was isolated from the crime scene. In 2005, a grand jury issued a “DNA indictment” against “John Doe” based on the DNA profile. In 2011, Guerrero’s DNA was found to match the profile. The prosecution moved to amend the indictment to add Guerrero’s name, which the court granted. Guerrero moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming it was defective and violated his right to a speedy trial, but these motions were denied. Guerrero then pleaded guilty to all counts and waived his right to appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

Procedural History

1. A