People v. Jones

101 A.D.3d 440, 954 N.Y.2d 453
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Jones. Read the opinion of the Court — 70 A.D.3d 1253

Opinion

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision (FRS) was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621 [2011]).

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of the underlying 2003 guilty plea may not be raised on this appeal from the judgment of resentence (see People v Jordan, 16 NY3d 845 [2011]; see also CEL 450.30 [3]), and defendant is not entitled to specific performance of his original plea bargain, which did not mention a term of PRS (see People v Harper, 85 AD3d 617 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 903 [2011]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Román and Clark, JJ.

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

People v. Jones, 101 A.D.3d 440, 954 N.Y.2d 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

101 A.D.3d 440 (People v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lingle
949 N.E.2d 952 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Jordan
947 N.E.2d 153 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Harper
85 A.D.3d 617 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)