People v. Padilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Padilla

76 A.D.2d 907, 907 N.Y.S.2d 862

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 907 (People v. Padilla) 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. Padilla, 76 A.D.2d 907, 907 N.Y.S.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered April 17, 2009, resentencing defendant to concurrent terms of 12 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was not barred by double jeopardy, since defendant was still serving his prison term at that time, and therefore had no reasonable expectation of finality in his illegal sentence (see People v Murrell, 73 AD3d 598 [2010]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s due process argument. Defendant’s remaining claims are similar to arguments that were rejected in People v Williams (14 NY3d 198 [2010]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered April 17, 2009, resentencing defendant to concurrent terms of 12 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was not barred by double jeopardy, since defendant was still serving his prison term at that time, and therefore had no reasonable expectation of finality in his illegal sentence (see People v Murrell, 73 AD3d 598 [2010]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s due process argument. Defendant’s remaining claims are similar to arguments that were rejected in People v Williams (14 NY3d 198 [2010]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 907, 907 N.Y.S.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-padilla-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack