People v. Ralph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ralph

91 A.D.3d 796, 936 N.Y.2d 903

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 796 (People v. Ralph) 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. Ralph, 91 A.D.3d 796, 936 N.Y.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was [797]*797resentenced, 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 Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Algarin, 89 AD3d 859 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was [797]*797resentenced, 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 Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Algarin, 89 AD3d 859 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 796, 936 N.Y.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ralph-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack