People v. Mills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mills

124 A.D.3d 912, 998 N.Y.S.2d 922

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 2015·No. 2012-09409·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J), imposed September 19, 2012, upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on June 22, 1999.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States and the New York Constitutions (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).

Skelos, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and Duffy, 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, Kings County (Brennan, J), imposed September 19, 2012, upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on June 22, 1999.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States and the New York Constitutions (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).

Skelos, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

People v. Mills, 124 A.D.3d 912, 998 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

124 A.D.3d 912 (People v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related