People v. Collado

901 N.E.2d 752, 11 N.Y.3d 888
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 18, 2008·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified to the extent of remitting this matter to Supreme Court for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

Because Supreme Court failed to pronounce the term of defendant’s mandatory postrelease supervision in his presence, this matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for a resentencing proceeding (see People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 469-471 [2008]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments, concerning the propriety of his arrest, and conclude that they are meritless.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified by remitting to Supreme Court, New York County, for resentencing and, as so modified, affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

People v. Collado, 901 N.E.2d 752, 11 N.Y.3d 888 (N.Y. 2008).

901 N.E.2d 752 (People v. Collado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Acevedo
952 N.E.2d 1047 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Collado
73 A.D.3d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Frazier
70 A.D.3d 1507 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Warner
69 A.D.3d 1052 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mickens v. State
25 Misc. 3d 191 (New York State Court of Claims, 2009)
Nazario v. State
24 Misc. 3d 443 (New York State Court of Claims, 2009)