People v. Hsu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hsu

97 A.D.3d 603, 947 N.Y.2d 333

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 5, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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.

People v. Hsu, 97 A.D.3d 603, 947 N.Y.2d 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

97 A.D.3d 603 (People v. Hsu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related