People v. Epps

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Epps

105 A.D.3d 577, 963 N.Y.S.2d 626

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

DecidedApril 18, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 577 (People v. Epps) 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. Epps, 105 A.D.3d 577, 963 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2012, which denied resentencing under Correction Law § 601-d, unanimously dismissed, as taken from a nonappealable order.

[578]*578Citing double jeopardy concerns, the court declined to add postrelease supervision to defendant’s original sentence. Defendant, who asserts that he would derive certain benefits from being resentenced, argues that he should still be resentenced to his original prison term, without adding PRS. Since this appeal was not taken from a sentence or a resentence, but rather, from the denial of resentencing, it must be dismissed (see People v Pagan, 19 NY3d 368 [2012]; People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 447 [1981]). “[N]o appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization” (People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702, 704 [1984]).

Defendant’s further contention that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty is not properly before this Court.

Concur—Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2012, which denied resentencing under Correction Law § 601-d, unanimously dismissed, as taken from a nonappealable order.

[578]*578Citing double jeopardy concerns, the court declined to add postrelease supervision to defendant’s original sentence. Defendant, who asserts that he would derive certain benefits from being resentenced, argues that he should still be resentenced to his original prison term, without adding PRS. Since this appeal was not taken from a sentence or a resentence, but rather, from the denial of resentencing, it must be dismissed (see People v Pagan, 19 NY3d 368 [2012]; People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 447 [1981]). “[N]o appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization” (People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702, 704 [1984]).

Defendant’s further contention that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty is not properly before this Court.

Concur—Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 577, 963 N.Y.S.2d 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-epps-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack