AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Manuel Guerra, was convicted of thirty-two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration of a child under thirteen. The victims were his two step-daughters, with the offenses occurring between July 18, 2001, and April 30, 2005.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his convictions should be overturned due to ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his constitutional rights to be free from double jeopardy and to receive due process. Specifically, he claimed his counsel failed to request a bill of particulars, object to the State’s requests for trial date extensions, and challenge the number of counts in the indictment.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was not violated as the counts in the indictment were distinguishable by victim, time period, and/or type of act. Additionally, argued that the Defendant's due process rights were not infringed upon as the charging periods provided reasonable notice of the charges.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the Defendant's constitutional rights to be free from double jeopardy and to receive due process were violated by the State’s use of three-month charging periods.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Jonathan B. Sutin with concurrence from Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge James J. Wechsler, found that the Defendant did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that such alleged deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of his trial. The Court also determined that the Defendant's claims of double jeopardy and due process violations were either unpersuasive or not preserved for appeal, thus providing no basis for reversal of the convictions. The disciplinary actions against the Defendant's counsel were deemed irrelevant to the case, as they were not part of the record and did not establish a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel.