People v. Samuels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Samuels

127 A.D.3d 1001, 4 N.Y.S.3d 905

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

DecidedApril 15, 2015

Docket2012-03724

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1001 (People v. Samuels) 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. Samuels, 127 A.D.3d 1001, 4 N.Y.S.3d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), imposed March 23, 2012, upon his conviction of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being five years of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court on March 8, 2001.

*1002 Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant was still serving his original sentence when the resentence was imposed, the resentence to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-633 [2011]; People v Kearney, 116 AD3d 1064 [2014]; People v Flowers, 116 AD3d 710 [2014]).

Skelos, J.P., Austin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), imposed March 23, 2012, upon his conviction of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being five years of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court on March 8, 2001.

*1002 Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant was still serving his original sentence when the resentence was imposed, the resentence to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-633 [2011]; People v Kearney, 116 AD3d 1064 [2014]; People v Flowers, 116 AD3d 710 [2014]).

Skelos, J.P., Austin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 1001, 4 N.Y.S.3d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-samuels-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack