People v. Guerin
Docket 111809
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02299
- Docket
- 111809
Appeal from a judgment of conviction after a guilty plea in County Court, Clinton County, following waiver of indictment and superior court information charges.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Jonathan Guerin’s 2019 convictions and prison sentence following his guilty plea to multiple driving-related offenses arising from an April 2018 incident. The court held that challenges to the voluntariness of the plea and to counsel’s effectiveness were unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea after allocution, and no statements during the plea colloquy triggered the narrow exception to preservation. The court also found the excessiveness claim moot because defendant has reached his sentence's maximum expiration and is incarcerated on a separate conviction.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant's guilty plea was involuntary and therefore subject to vacatur despite no postallocution motion.
- Whether defendant preserved an ineffective assistance of counsel claim without making a postallocution motion.
- Whether the sentence was harsh or excessive given defendant's present incarceration on another conviction.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the preservation rule requiring a timely postallocution motion to challenge a plea's voluntariness or counsel's effectiveness. Because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea after allocution and made no admissions during the colloquy that negated elements of the offenses or cast doubt on guilt, the claims were unpreserved and not reviewable. The excessiveness claim was moot because defendant had reached his sentence's maximum expiration and was incarcerated on another conviction, removing present injunctive relief.
Authorities Cited
- People v Tyrell22 NY3d 359 (2013)
- People v Lopez71 NY2d 662 (1988)
- People v Seeber4 NY3d 780 (2005)
Parties
- Appellant
- Jonathan Guerin
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Keith Bruno
- Attorney
- Craig S. Leeds
- Attorney
- Andrew J. Wylie
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-16
- Judgment of conviction entered
- 2019-04-01
- Calendar/hearing date
- 2026-03-26
- Incident date
- 2018-04-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult criminal defense counsel
Discuss possible post-conviction remedies, including whether a timely motion to vacate or a collateral challenge is available given the preservation issues and procedural history.
- 2
Consider post-conviction motions
If new, non-frivolous evidence or constitutional claims exist, counsel can evaluate filing a CPL post-conviction motion or a federal habeas petition as applicable.
- 3
Review sentence and incarceration status
Confirm current custody status and eligibility for parole or concurrent sentence calculations with counsel or the Department of Corrections to determine any practical relief.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed Guerin's convictions and sentence, finding his challenges were unpreserved or moot.
- Why couldn't he challenge his guilty plea now?
- Because he did not file a timely motion to withdraw his plea after allocution, which is required to preserve voluntariness or ineffective-assistance claims.
- Does this mean the sentence cannot be changed?
- Not from this appeal—the court affirmed the sentence and found the excessiveness claim moot given his current incarceration on another conviction.
- Can he still try to get relief?
- Potentially, but he would generally need to pursue appropriate post-conviction relief such as a CPL motion or habeas petition, and should consult counsel about timeliness and grounds.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Guerin - 2026 NY Slip Op 02299 People v Guerin 2026 NY Slip Op 02299 April 16, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Guerin, Appellant. Decided and Entered:April 16, 2026 111809 Calendar Date: March 26, 2026 Before: Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher And Mcshan, JJ. Craig S. Leeds, Albany, for appellant. Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jaime A. Douthat of counsel), for respondent. McShan, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Keith Bruno, J.), rendered April 1, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of driving while intoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and circumvention of an ignition interlock device, the traffic infraction of unsafe lane movement, and the violation of unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. Defendant, who had last been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 2015, was arrested following an April 2018 incident in which he caused property damage while driving in the Town of Mooers, Clinton County, and then failed field sobriety tests. He waived indictment and was charged in an eight-count superior court information with offenses relating to the incident. As trial was about to get underway, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, circumvention of an ignition interlock device, unsafe lane movement and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in full satisfaction of the charges against him. County Court made no commitment as to sentencing, and ultimately sentenced defendant to, as is relevant here, concurrent terms of incarceration that amounted to 1½ to 4½ years in prison. Defendant appeals. We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion that he had ample time to make ( see People v Tyrell , 22 NY3d 359, 363-364 [2013]; People v Kadar , 244 AD3d 1669, 1671 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Lewis , 234 AD3d 1209, 1210 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1009 [2025]). Contrary to his suggestion, he made no statements that negated an element of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, cast doubt upon his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his plea so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule ( see People v Tyrell , 22 NY3d at 364; People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Apelles , 185 AD3d 1298, 1299 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1092 [2020]). We decline his further invitation to take corrective action in the interest of justice. Defendant was advised that his plea to five of the counts in the superior court information would resolve the pending charges against him, and the fact that he agreed to County Court's description of those offenses during the colloquy rather than giving his own "factual exposition for each element of" them had no impact upon what the record otherwise shows to be a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea ( People v Seeber , 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; see People v Goldstein , 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; People v Favreau , 174 AD3d 1226, 1227 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 980 [2019]). Defendant's further claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is similarly unpreserved in the absence of a postallocution motion ( see People v Quarterman , 238 AD3d 1385, 1386 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Lewis , 234 AD3d at 1210 ). On his remaining argument that the sentence was harsh and excessive, because defendant "has reached the maximum expiration date of his sentence and" is presently incarcerated as a result of another conviction, that argument is moot ( People v Cotto , 218 AD3d 1021, 1026 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1039 [2023]). Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.