People v. Sealy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sealy

116 A.D.3d 988, 983 N.Y.S.2d 865

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

DecidedApril 23, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 988 (People v. Sealy) 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. Sealy, 116 A.D.3d 988, 983 N.Y.S.2d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeals by the defendant from two resentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), both imposed February 23, 2012, upon his convictions of manslaughter in the first degree under indictment No. 6837/99 and robbery in the first degree under Superior Court information No. 3519/00, the resentences being periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on April 18, 2000.

Ordered that the resentences are affirmed.

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentences of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to terms including the statutorily required periods 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, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1139 [2014]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]). Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeals by the defendant from two resentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), both imposed February 23, 2012, upon his convictions of manslaughter in the first degree under indictment No. 6837/99 and robbery in the first degree under Superior Court information No. 3519/00, the resentences being periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on April 18, 2000.

Ordered that the resentences are affirmed.

Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentences of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to terms including the statutorily required periods 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, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1139 [2014]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]). Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 988, 983 N.Y.S.2d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sealy-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack