People v. Lopez-Jovel, 107 A.D.3d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Lopez-Jovel, 107 A.D.3d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Ravenell (nyappdiv, 2014-08-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ravenell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed. *517 Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, his resentencing to a term that included the statutorily required period of postrelease 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 Brinson, 21 NY3d 490, 492-495 [2013]; People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630 [2011]; People v Rogers, 108 AD3d 683, 684 [2013]; People v Marhone, 107 AD3d 743, 743-744 [2013]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Manuel Lopez-Jovel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 5, 2013.
107 A.D.3d 743
Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered October 28, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.