People v. Guerrero
2025 NY Slip Op 00766 (2025)
Rule of Law:
Under New York's Raise the Age Law, a court does not abuse its discretion in finding "extraordinary circumstances" to prevent the transfer of an adolescent offender's violent felony case to Family Court where the crime involves significant violence and the offender has shown a pattern of unresponsiveness to prior justice system interventions, even if prior juvenile adjudications are not directly considered.
Facts:
- Errick Guerrero, who was 17 years old at the time, participated in a home invasion robbery.
- Guerrero and his masked accomplices unlawfully entered the victim's home.
- Upon entry, Guerrero and his accomplices immediately confronted the victim with weapons and demanded money.
- The home invasion robbery involved weapons and resulted in injuries to the victim.
- Two of Guerrero's accomplices later testified at trial, placing Guerrero at the scene of the crimes and confirming their intent to rob the victim.
- Guerrero had been involved in the criminal justice system for the preceding five years and had received various services and programs.
Procedural Posture:
- Errick Guerrero was charged with robbery in the first degree and two counts of burglary in the first degree, which are violent felonies.
- The case was initially brought in the youth part of the superior court, Onondaga County Court.
- The prosecutor filed a motion under CPL 722.23 (1) (b) seeking to prevent the removal of Guerrero's case from the youth part to Family Court.
- County Court (Bogan, A.J.) granted the prosecutor's motion, determining that "extraordinary circumstances" existed that warranted keeping the case in the youth part.
- Following this ruling, a jury subsequently convicted Guerrero of robbery in the first degree and two counts of burglary in the first degree.
- Guerrero appealed the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, challenging, among other issues, the County Court's decision to prevent the transfer of his case to Family Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion in finding "extraordinary circumstances" to prevent the transfer of a 17-year-old's violent felony case from the youth part of superior court to Family Court, where the defendant committed a home invasion robbery involving weapons and victim injuries, and has a history of engaging in escalating criminal behavior despite prior justice system services?
Opinions:
Majority - Court
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that extraordinary circumstances existed to prevent the transfer of Errick Guerrero's case to Family Court. The court found that the prosecutor established extraordinary circumstances, noting that while prior juvenile adjudications themselves cannot be used to make this determination, the underlying "illegal or immoral acts" related to such adjudications can be considered. The majority emphasized that Guerrero was charged with a violent crime—a home invasion robbery involving weapons and victim injuries. Critically, despite having received various services and programs over the last five years while involved in the criminal justice system, Guerrero demonstrated no appreciable positive response and continued to engage in escalating criminal behavior. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including both mitigating and substantial aggravating factors, the court concluded that the lower court's finding of extraordinary circumstances was justified and not an abuse of discretion, thereby affirming the conviction.
Dissenting - Montour, J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law in granting the People's motion to prevent removal of Errick Guerrero's case to Family Court. Justice Montour argued that the Legislature intended the "extraordinary circumstances" standard to be a "high standard," with denials of transfers to Family Court being "extremely rare" and requiring "highly unusual and heinous facts" and strong proof of unamenability to Family Court services. The dissent contended that the court improperly considered Guerrero's prior juvenile delinquency history and his response to Family Court services, as such use is prohibited by Family Court Act § 381.2, and the People failed to present evidence of the underlying acts of those adjudications. Furthermore, the dissent argued that the violent nature of the crime alone is insufficient to constitute extraordinary circumstances because the Raise the Age Law already specifically addresses violent felonies. Without allegations that Guerrero was a ringleader, played a significant non-bystander role, or personally brandished a weapon or caused injury, the dissent questioned what set of facts would not be deemed "extraordinary" under the majority's reasoning.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on the application of the "extraordinary circumstances" standard under New York's Raise the Age Law. It affirms that while prior juvenile adjudications are inadmissible, a defendant's pattern of unresponsiveness to previous interventions, combined with the extreme violence of the current offense, can justify retaining a case in the youth part of superior court. The decision highlights the discretion afforded to trial courts in balancing various factors, emphasizing the difficulty in meeting the "high standard" set by the legislature, yet demonstrating that it can be met in cases involving severe violence and persistent criminal behavior. This ruling will likely influence how prosecutors frame their motions and how courts assess future requests for retaining adolescent offenders in the superior court.
