People v. Warren

91 A.D.3d 800, 936 N.Y.2d 904
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 17, 2012·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Since the defendant had not yet completed the previously imposed terms of imprisonment when he was resentenced, the resentencing to a mandatory period 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 [2011]; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550 [2011]; People v Myrick, 84 AD3d 1272 [2011]).

Furthermore, this Court is without authority to reconsider the incarceratory component of the sentence on this appeal (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d at 635; People v Edwards, 89 AD3d 1034 [2011]; People v Myrick, 84 AD3d 1272 [2011]). Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Warren, 91 A.D.3d 800, 936 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

91 A.D.3d 800 (People v. Warren) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. John
92 A.D.3d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)