People v. Battle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Battle

94 A.D.3d 1014, 942 N.Y.S.2d 362

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 17, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 1014 (People v. Battle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Battle, 94 A.D.3d 1014, 942 N.Y.S.2d 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed March 16, 2011, which, upon his conviction of robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of ammunition, imposed periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on July 2, 2001.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant had not yet completed the previously imposed terms of imprisonment when he was resentenced, the resentencing to mandatory periods of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621 [2011]; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550 [2011]; People v Myrick, 84 AD3d 1272 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed March 16, 2011, which, upon his conviction of robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of ammunition, imposed periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on July 2, 2001.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant had not yet completed the previously imposed terms of imprisonment when he was resentenced, the resentencing to mandatory periods of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621 [2011]; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550 [2011]; People v Myrick, 84 AD3d 1272 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 1014, 942 N.Y.S.2d 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-battle-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack