The following excerpt is from People v. Guerrero, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07044, 28 N.Y.3d 110, 42 N.Y.S.3d 80, 65 N.E.3d 51 (N.Y. 2016):
3 Defendant makes the additional argument that his prosecution for rape in the first degree was untimely under the five-year statute of limitations that was in effect at the time. We have held, however, that [t]he statute of limitations under CPL 30.10 is not a jurisdictional matter, nor is it a right of constitutional dimension that survives a guilty plea (People v. Parilla, 8 N.Y.3d 654, 659, 838 N.Y.S.2d 824, 870 N.E.2d 142 [2007] ). As such, defendant's statute of limitations argument is not properly before us.
3 Defendant makes the additional argument that his prosecution for rape in the first degree was untimely under the five-year statute of limitations that was in effect at the time. We have held, however, that [t]he statute of limitations under CPL 30.10 is not a jurisdictional matter, nor is it a right of constitutional dimension that survives a guilty plea (People v. Parilla, 8 N.Y.3d 654, 659, 838 N.Y.S.2d 824, 870 N.E.2d 142 [2007] ). As such, defendant's statute of limitations argument is not properly before us.
4 Defendant never denied that he was the perpetrator, merely asserting the evidentiary hearsay issue.
4 Defendant never denied that he was the perpetrator, merely asserting the evidentiary hearsay issue.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.