Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Vincent Johnson, appellant.
Submitted-November 23, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), imposed April 8, 2009, which, upon his convictions of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, imposed a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the term of imprisonment previously imposed on January 8, 2004.
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and aggravated harassment in the second degree. On January 8, 2004, he was sentenced to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of seven years on the robbery convictions, four years on the assault in the second degree conviction, one year on the assault in the third degree conviction, one year on the aggravated harassment conviction, and an indeterminate term of two to six years on the reckless endangerment conviction. However, at the initial sentencing hearing, the Supreme Court did not mention the mandatory period of postrelease supervision that the defendant should have been assessed as part of his sentence. On April 8, 2009, while the defendant was still incarcerated and serving the original sentence, he was brought before the Supreme Court for resentencing so the mandatory period of postrelease supervision could be imposed (see Penal Law § 70.45).
Since, at resentencing, the defendant had not yet been released from incarceration for the original sentence, the 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. Clark, AD3d, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 08130 [2d Dept 2010]; People v. Pruitt, 74 AD3d 1366, lv denied 15 NY3d 855; People v. Tillman, 74 AD3d 1251, lv denied 15 NY3d 856; People v. Mendez, 73 AD3d 951; People v. Murrell, 73 AD3d 598, lv granted 15 NY3d 776; People v. Parisi, 72 AD3d 989; People v. Becker, 72 AD3d 1290; People v. Scalercio, 71 AD3d 1060; People v. Prendergast, 71 AD3d 1055, lv granted 15 NY3d 808; cf. People v. Jordan, 15 NY3d 727, 728; People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198, cert denied US, 131 S Ct 125).
COVELLO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and BELEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009-04634 (Ind.No. 2776 /02)
Decided: December 21, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)