People v. Hassell, 931 N.E.2d 539 (NY 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Hassell, 931 N.E.2d 539 (NY 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Negron (nyappdiv, 2010-11-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Negron
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the resentencing did not subject him to double jeopardy (see People v Tillman, 74 AD3d 1251 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 856 [2010]; People v Mendez, 73 AD3d 951, 952 [2010]; People v Parisi, 72 AD3d 989, 990 [2010], lv granted 15 NY3d 776 [2010]; People v Prendergast, 71 AD3d 1055 [2010], lv granted 15 NY3d 808 [2010]; cf. People v Jordan, 15 NY3d 727, 728 [2010]; People v Hassell, 14 NY3d 925, 926 [2010]; People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]).
examined Cited "see" Hassell v. Fischer (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Hassell, 14 N.Y.3d 925, 926 , 905 N.Y.S.2d 555 , 931 N.E.2d 539 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
William Hassell, Appellant
170 SSM 25.
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 17, 2010.
931 N.E.2d 539
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Mark W. Zeno and Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant., Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Matthew C. Williams of counsel), for respondent.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the resentence vacated and the original sentence reinstated.

In November 2002, defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and was promised a sentence of 3½ years imprisonment. Although postrelease supervision (PRS) was discussed during the plea proceeding, Supreme Court did not inform defendant of the specific term of PRS it intended to impose. Moreover, Supreme Court did not pronounce PRS at sentencing. In December 2008—more than nine months after defendant was released from prison—defendant returned to court and Supreme Court, in error, resentenced him, adding a five-year period of PRS. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Federal Constitution precludes a court from adding PRS to a defendant’s sentence once the defendant has been released from imprisonment (see People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 217 [2010]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.