From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Quinones

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 13, 2013
103 A.D.3d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-02-13

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Joselito QUINONES, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel; David Schiavone on the brief), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel; David Schiavone on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), imposed August 15, 2011, which, upon his conviction of attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, imposed periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on July 19, 2004.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his resentencing to terms which included the statutorily required periods of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law, since he had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment at the time he was resentenced ( see People v. Lingle, 16 N.Y.3d 621, 630, 632, 926 N.Y.S.2d 4, 949 N.E.2d 952;People v. Mills, 90 A.D.3d 1076, 934 N.Y.S.2d 862;People v. Louis, 90 A.D.3d 1075, 935 N.Y.S.2d 516;People v. Dawkins, 87 A.D.3d 550, 927 N.Y.S.2d 797;People v. Harris, 86 A.D.3d 543, 543–544, 926 N.Y.S.2d 319).

*908The periods of postrelease supervision imposed at resentencing were not excessive ( see People v. Guillen, 85 A.D.3d 1201, 1202, 926 N.Y.S.2d 297;People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( seePenal Law § 70.30; People v. Buss, 11 N.Y.3d 553, 557, 872 N.Y.S.2d 413, 900 N.E.2d 964;People v. Brinson, 90 A.D.3d 670, 671–672, 933 N.Y.S.2d 728,lv. granted 18 N.Y.3d 992, 945 N.Y.S.2d 647, 968 N.E.2d 1003).

RIVERA, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Quinones

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 13, 2013
103 A.D.3d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Quinones

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Joselito QUINONES, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 13, 2013

Citations

103 A.D.3d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 943
958 N.Y.S.2d 907

Citing Cases

People v. Tucker

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, his resentencing to a term…

People v. Quinones

Lippman2d Dept.: 103 A.D.3d 756, 958 N.Y.S.2d 907 (Kings) Lippman,…