People v. Flowers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flowers

116 A.D.3d 710, 982 N.Y.S.2d 786

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

DecidedApril 2, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 710 (People v. Flowers) 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. Flowers, 116 A.D.3d 710, 982 N.Y.S.2d 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J), imposed August 16, 2012, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court on March 25, 2002.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when the resentence was imposed, the resentence to a term including the statutorily required period 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, 630-633 [2011]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 812 [2012]; People v Harris, 86 AD3d 543, 543-544 [2011]). Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, 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 (Buchter, J), imposed August 16, 2012, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court on March 25, 2002.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when the resentence was imposed, the resentence to a term including the statutorily required period 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, 630-633 [2011]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 812 [2012]; People v Harris, 86 AD3d 543, 543-544 [2011]). Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 710, 982 N.Y.S.2d 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flowers-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack