From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thompson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 14, 2012
92 A.D.3d 812 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-02-14

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robert THOMPSON, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ellen Fried of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Gamaliel Marrero on the brief), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ellen Fried of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Gamaliel Marrero on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed November 18, 2010, which upon his conviction of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, imposed a period of postrelease supervision of five years in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on May 29, 2003.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in 2003, and he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a determinate term of 12 years of imprisonment ( see Penal Law § 70.06[6] ). At that time, however, the Supreme Court failed to impose the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision ( see People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457, 859 N.Y.S.2d 582, 889 N.E.2d 459). On November 18, 2010, while the defendant was still incarcerated in connection with that conviction, he was brought before the Supreme Court for resentencing so that the mandatory period of postrelease supervision could be imposed ( see Penal Law §§ 70.00[6], 70.45[2]; Correction Law § 601–d).

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, his resentencing to a term including the 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 N.Y.3d 621, 630–633, 926 N.Y.S.2d 4, 949 N.E.2d 952; People v. Harris, 86 A.D.3d 543, 543–544, 926 N.Y.S.2d 319; People v. Burgos, 84 A.D.3d 975, 975, 921 N.Y.S.2d 898; *444 People v. Young, 78 A.D.3d 744, 910 N.Y.S.2d 521).

SKELOS, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Thompson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 14, 2012
92 A.D.3d 812 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robert THOMPSON, appellant.

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

Date published: Feb 14, 2012

Citations

92 A.D.3d 812 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1289
938 N.Y.S.2d 443

Citing Cases

People v. Wynter

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed. Since the defendant was still serving his original sentence when the…

People v. Simms

ORDERED that the second resentence is affirmed. *885Since the defendant was still serving his first…