green
Positive treatment
23.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Dozier
Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to include the statutorily required periods of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law (see People v Lingle, *952 16 NY3d 621 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gray
Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to include the statutorily required periods 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, 630-633 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d *1102 967, 968 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bethea
Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to include the statutorily required periods 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 Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lowe
Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required periods 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 completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment (see People v Brinson, 21 NY3d 490, 495-495 [2013]; People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Williams, 116 AD3d 719, 719-720 [2014]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; see also Penal Law § 70.30 [1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mills
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States and the New York Constitutions (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ruis
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to terms including the statutorily required periods of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Curtis
Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to include the statutorily required periods 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 Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Curtis
Since the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term that included a statutorily required 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, 630-633 [2011]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Brown, 110 AD3d 730, 731 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Curtis
Since the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term that included a statutorily required 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, 630-633 [2011]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Brown, 110 AD3d 730, 731 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Moreno
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentences of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to terms including the statutorily required periods of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Moreno
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentences of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to terms including the statutorily required periods of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fletcher
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required periods 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, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fletcher
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required periods 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, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Johnson
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Johnson
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776, 777 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harrison
“Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period[s] of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution” (People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Jiggetts, 108 AD3d 641, 641 [2013]; People v Wheeler, 108 AD3d 646, 646 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1078 [2013]; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550, 550 [2011]; People v Har…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harrison
“Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period[s] of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution” (People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919 [2013]; see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Jiggetts, 108 AD3d 641, 641 [2013]; People v Wheeler, 108 AD3d 646, 646 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1078 [2013]; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550, 550 [2011]; People v Har…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jose Hernandez
v.
Jose Hernandez
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 16, 2013.
Cited by 19 opinions | Published
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Módica, J.), imposed February 1, 2012, upon his conviction of assault in the first degree (two counts), the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on August 25, 2000.
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
[*919] Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-632 [2011]; People v Jiggetts, 108 AD3d 641 [2013]; People v Wheeler, 108 AD3d 646 [2013]; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550 [2011]; People v Harris, 86 AD3d 543 [2011]).
Further, the resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.