People v. Hsu
This text of 97 A.D.3d 603 (People v. Hsu) 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.
Opinion
Since the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed determinate sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed did not subject him to double jeopardy (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Jones, 94 AD3d 1146 [2012]; People v Battle, 94 AD3d 1014 [2012]).
The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
97 A.D.3d 603, 947 N.Y.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hsu-nyappdiv-2012.