People v. Carrasquillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carrasquillo

82 A.D.3d 1259, 919 N.Y.2d 382

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1259 (People v. Carrasquillo) 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. Carrasquillo, 82 A.D.3d 1259, 919 N.Y.2d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree. On April 15, 2002, he was sentenced to a determinate term of 20 years imprisonment. On June 12, 2009, while the defendant was still incarcerated and serving the original sentence, the Supreme Court resentenced him to the same prison term, but with the term of 20 years imprisonment to be followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision.

Under the circumstances of this case, there is no merit to the defendant’s contentions that the resentence violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and his due process rights because he had a legitimate expectation in the finality of his sentence (see People v Williams, 81 AD3d 756 [2011]; People v Tillman, 74 AD3d 1251 [2010]; cf. People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]).

The resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.E, Dillon, Balkin and Miller, JJ., concur. .

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

The defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree. On April 15, 2002, he was sentenced to a determinate term of 20 years imprisonment. On June 12, 2009, while the defendant was still incarcerated and serving the original sentence, the Supreme Court resentenced him to the same prison term, but with the term of 20 years imprisonment to be followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision.

Under the circumstances of this case, there is no merit to the defendant’s contentions that the resentence violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and his due process rights because he had a legitimate expectation in the finality of his sentence (see People v Williams, 81 AD3d 756 [2011]; People v Tillman, 74 AD3d 1251 [2010]; cf. People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]).

The resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.E, Dillon, Balkin and Miller, JJ., concur. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1259, 919 N.Y.2d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carrasquillo-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack