From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Licitra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1986
125 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

December 22, 1986

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.).


Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

By judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Tomlinson, J.), rendered March 21, 1980, the defendant was convicted, inter alia, of driving while intoxicated.

By order of this court dated October 5, 1981, the judgment was modified by vacating the sentence, and as so modified, it was affirmed and the matter was remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for resentencing (see, People v. Licitra, 84 A.D.2d 539). The defendant was resentenced by the same court on November 19, 1981.

The defendant has appealed from the resentence, raising, inter alia, claims relating to the underlying judgment of conviction. The defendant's contentions were either decided against him on the prior appeal (see, People v. Licitra, supra) or could have been raised on that prior appeal. In any event, there is no merit to the defendant's claim that actions by the hearing court precluded the indictment herein (see, People v. Aaron, 55 A.D.2d 653).

The defendant's claim that this resentencing constitutes double jeopardy is without merit (People v. Maldonado, 82 A.D.2d 576). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Licitra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1986
125 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Licitra

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VICTOR J. LICITRA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 22, 1986

Citations

125 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Ott

Defendant further contends that neither County nor Supreme Court ruled on that part of his omnibus motion…

People v. Ott

Defendant further contends that neither County nor Supreme Court ruled on that part of his omnibus motion…