People v. Riddick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riddick

88 A.D.3d 516, 930 N.Y.2d 876

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Riddick. Read the opinion of the Court — 70 A.D.3d 1421 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 13, 2011·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]). There is no merit to defendant’s argument that a 60-day stay of judgment issued in defendant’s CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Department of Correctional Services imposed a deadline on the resentencing court.

[517]*517We have no authority to revisit defendant’s prison sentence on this appeal (see id. at 635). Concur — Catterson, J.E, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

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]). There is no merit to defendant’s argument that a 60-day stay of judgment issued in defendant’s CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Department of Correctional Services imposed a deadline on the resentencing court.

[517]*517We have no authority to revisit defendant’s prison sentence on this appeal (see id. at 635). Concur — Catterson, J.E, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

People v. Riddick, 88 A.D.3d 516, 930 N.Y.2d 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

88 A.D.3d 516 (People v. Riddick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related