People v. Ralph
91 A.D.3d 796, 936 N.Y.2d 903
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 17, 2012·Published·Cited by 10 cases
Opinion
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was [797] 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 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
People v. Ralph, 91 A.D.3d 796, 936 N.Y.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).
91 A.D.3d 796 (People v. Ralph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
DRAKE, WALLACE, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
DAVIS, ANTWAN, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
People v. Drake
126 A.D.3d 1382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Davis
126 A.D.3d 1398 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Harpe
100 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Pemberton
93 A.D.3d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. John
92 A.D.3d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)