People v. Fletcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fletcher

115 A.D.3d 675, 981 N.Y.S.2d 563

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 675 (People v. Fletcher) 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. Fletcher, 115 A.D.3d 675, 981 N.Y.S.2d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Harrington, J.), imposed July 12, 2012, upon his conviction of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and tampering with physical evidence, the resentence being periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court (Hanophy, J.) on January 3, 2007.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required 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, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, 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, Queens County (Harrington, J.), imposed July 12, 2012, upon his conviction of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and tampering with physical evidence, the resentence being periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court (Hanophy, J.) on January 3, 2007.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required 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, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 675, 981 N.Y.S.2d 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fletcher-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack