People v. Swinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Swinton

96 A.D.3d 681, 946 N.Y.S.2d 863

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

DecidedJune 28, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 681 (People v. Swinton) 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. Swinton, 96 A.D.3d 681, 946 N.Y.S.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March 27, 2009, resentencing defendant to concurrent terms of nine years, to be followed by five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 21, 2010, which denied defendant’s CEL 440.20 motion to set aside the resentence, unanimously dismissed as academic.

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]). Defendant was resentenced prior to the maximum expiration date of his single aggregated sentence (see People v Wilson, 92 AD3d 512 [2012]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, 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 (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March 27, 2009, resentencing defendant to concurrent terms of nine years, to be followed by five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 21, 2010, which denied defendant’s CEL 440.20 motion to set aside the resentence, unanimously dismissed as academic.

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]). Defendant was resentenced prior to the maximum expiration date of his single aggregated sentence (see People v Wilson, 92 AD3d 512 [2012]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 681, 946 N.Y.S.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swinton-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack