People v. Moreno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moreno

117 A.D.3d 879, 984 N.Y.S.2d 878

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 14, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 879 (People v. Moreno) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Moreno, 117 A.D.3d 879, 984 N.Y.S.2d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed September 27, 2012, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, the resentence being periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court (Knipel, J.) on April 6, 2000.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentences of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to terms including the statutorily required periods of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (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]).

Mastro, J.E, Hall, Lott, Austin 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 27, 2012, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, the resentence being periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court (Knipel, J.) on April 6, 2000.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentences of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to terms including the statutorily required periods of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (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]).

Mastro, J.E, Hall, Lott, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 879, 984 N.Y.S.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moreno-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack