People v. Randolph
101 A.D.3d 482, 954 N.Y.2d 868
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Randolph. Read the opinion of the Court — 122 A.D.3d 522 →
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 2012·Published
Opinion
The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621 [2011]), and we do not find that term to be excessive. We have no authority to revisit defendant’s prison sentence on this appeal (see id. at 635). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Randolph, 101 A.D.3d 482, 954 N.Y.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).
101 A.D.3d 482 (People v. Randolph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Lingle
949 N.E.2d 952 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)