New York’s highest court issued a divided decision Tuesday that allowed an exception to the landmark legislation aimed at keeping most 16- and 17-year-olds charged with crimes out of the adult justice system.
The opinion was announced as state prosecutors prepare to lobby for rollbacks to the state’s controversial Raise the Age law as part of this year’s state budget process.
In the decision, a majority of the seven-judge Court of Appeals agreed with an appellate court opinion that the case of Errick Guerrero, a 17-year-old with a five-year history of family court involvement who participated in a violent home robbery, fell under an exception to the Raise the Age law. Guerrero was convicted in 2022 in Onondaga County Court of first-degree burglary and robbery and sentenced to a state prison term instead of becoming an adolescent offender in family court..
“We cannot say that the court, after weighing the considerable aggravating and mitigating factors here, abused its discretion as a matter of law in determining that extraordinary circumstances exist that should prevent removal to family court,” wrote Associate Court of Appeals Judge Shirley Troutman in the majority opinion, which was supported by Associate Judges Michael Garcia, Madeline Singas and Anthony Cannataro.
But the decision split three of the liberal-leaning judges from the majority. Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and associate judges Jenny Rivera and Caitlin Halligan dissented on the grounds that Guerrero’s crimes would lower the bar for whether “all but the most serious cases” would go to family court.
“The facts of the defendant’s crime are certainly troubling, but they are also typical of many violent felonies which are nonetheless presumptively removable to family court,” wrote Halligan in her dissent.
The Raise the Age law automatically transfers most cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds to family courts except in cases involving deadly weapons, significant injuries, sex offenses or when prosecutors argue for “extraordinary circumstances” — which is what happened in Guerrero’s case.
On February 17, 2021 Guerrero and three other accomplices went to the home of an acquaintance armed with knives to rob him, according to the court decision. When the victim attempted to grab his shotgun, another member in Guerrero’s crew snatched it and used it to hit the victim in the face multiple times, bloodying his eye and mouth. Three of the robbers left with money, shotgun shells and drugs, after one was detained by the victim’s aunt, according to the high court’s account.
In Guerrero’s case, the Onondaga County District Attorney asserted that the facts and circumstances of the premeditated robbery were “frightening and extraordinary and bespoke a level of criminal liability inappropriate for adjudication in Family Court,” wrote Troutman.
Guerrero’s attorney argued his client, who is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other mental health disorders, should stay in family court, so he could continue to get treatment services.
The lower court granted the DA’s motion, concluding that not only had Guerrero and his accomplices committed a robbery that caused injury, but prior to the incident Guerrero’s youth offenses had continued despite having received family court services for five years. Guerrero received multiple family court appearance tickets and judgments during this period — culminating with him illegally driving a car shortly before the robbery.
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed, finding that the “totality of the circumstances” in Guerrero’s case should meet the threshold of the Raise the Age exception. The high court’s majority agreed.
“This is not a case of mere reoffense but of chronic, repeated reoffense and escalating criminal behavior,” wrote Troutman.
The dissenting justices argued that there was not enough evidence on his prior record to decide whether Guerrero would not benefit from continued mental health services, and that applying this case as a model for court discretion would cast too wide a net.
“Such discretion is not meant to be boundless,” wrote Halligan.
In response to the decision, a group of legal services providers and criminal justice reform advocates who are hoping to head off the pressure on Gov. Kathy Hochul to make changes to Raise the Age, said that the decision should not set precedent for future cases.
“The decision in this case applies solely to the facts of this case,” wrote a spokesperson for the The Coalition to Protect Raise the Age. “It does not alter the requirement under Raise the Age that judges consider whether the prosecution has proven the existence of extraordinary circumstances that would permit retention of the case in adult court.”
