People v. Simms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simms

77 A.D.3d 562, 909 N.Y.S.2d 354

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 562 (People v. Simms) 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. Simms, 77 A.D.3d 562, 909 N.Y.S.2d 354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered December 19, 2008, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was not barred by double jeopardy, since defendant was still serving his prison term at that time, and therefore had no reasonable expectation of finality in his illegal sentence (see People v Murrell, 73 AD3d 598 [2010]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s due process argument. Defendant’s remaining claims are similar to arguments that were rejected in People v Williams (14 NY3d 198 [2010]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered December 19, 2008, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was not barred by double jeopardy, since defendant was still serving his prison term at that time, and therefore had no reasonable expectation of finality in his illegal sentence (see People v Murrell, 73 AD3d 598 [2010]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s due process argument. Defendant’s remaining claims are similar to arguments that were rejected in People v Williams (14 NY3d 198 [2010]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 562, 909 N.Y.S.2d 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simms-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack