People v. Mejia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mejia

76 A.D.2d 1033, 907 N.Y.S.2d 682

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 21, 2010·Published

Opinion

[1034] Ordered that the resentence is reversed, on the law, the period of postrelease supervision is vacated, and the original sentence imposed on September 19, 2000, is reinstated.

As the People correctly concede, the imposition of a period of postrelease supervision upon this defendant violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution (see US Const Fifth Amend; People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198 [2010]; People v Marquez, 73 AD3d 1212 [2010]). Accordingly, the resentence must be reversed, the period of postrelease supervision vacated, and the original sentence reinstated. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

[1034] Ordered that the resentence is reversed, on the law, the period of postrelease supervision is vacated, and the original sentence imposed on September 19, 2000, is reinstated.

As the People correctly concede, the imposition of a period of postrelease supervision upon this defendant violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution (see US Const Fifth Amend; People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198 [2010]; People v Marquez, 73 AD3d 1212 [2010]). Accordingly, the resentence must be reversed, the period of postrelease supervision vacated, and the original sentence reinstated. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

People v. Mejia, 76 A.D.2d 1033, 907 N.Y.S.2d 682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

76 A.D.2d 1033 (People v. Mejia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related