People v. Tucker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tucker

105 A.D.3d 1067, 963 N.Y.S.2d 593

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

DecidedApril 24, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 1067 (People v. Tucker) 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. Tucker, 105 A.D.3d 1067, 963 N.Y.S.2d 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed June 9, 2011, upon [1068]*1068his conviction of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to a determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on July 29, 2002.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his resentencing to a term which included the statutorily required period of post-release supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law since, at the time he was resentenced, he had not yet completed the sentence of imprisonment originally imposed upon him (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630 [2011]; People v Riley, 103 AD3d 818 [2013]; People v Quinones, 103 AD3d 756 [2013]; People v Lovett, 102 AD3d 812 [2013]; People v Davis, 102 AD3d 808, 809 [2013]; People v Harpe, 100 AD3d 657 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1011 [2013]).

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Hall, 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 (Brennan, J.), imposed June 9, 2011, upon [1068]*1068his conviction of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to a determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on July 29, 2002.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his resentencing to a term which included the statutorily required period of post-release supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law since, at the time he was resentenced, he had not yet completed the sentence of imprisonment originally imposed upon him (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630 [2011]; People v Riley, 103 AD3d 818 [2013]; People v Quinones, 103 AD3d 756 [2013]; People v Lovett, 102 AD3d 812 [2013]; People v Davis, 102 AD3d 808, 809 [2013]; People v Harpe, 100 AD3d 657 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1011 [2013]).

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 1067, 963 N.Y.S.2d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tucker-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack