People v. Tucker

105 A.D.3d 1067, 963 N.Y.S.2d 593
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Tucker. Read the opinion of the Court — 91 A.D.3d 1030

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

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

105 A.D.3d 1067 (People v. Tucker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lingle
949 N.E.2d 952 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Davis
102 A.D.3d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Lovett
102 A.D.3d 812 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Quinones
103 A.D.3d 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Riley
103 A.D.3d 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)