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. Carmelo DeJesus, appellant.
Submitted—April 7, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), imposed September 17, 2009, which, upon his conviction of assault in the first degree, aggravated criminal contempt, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, imposed a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on July 1, 2003.
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, aggravated criminal contempt, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. On July 1, 2003, he was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years on the conviction of assault in the first degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 21/313 to 7 years on the conviction of aggravated criminal contempt, and a determinate term of imprisonment of 1 year on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. However, the Supreme Court did not impose the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision. On September 17, 2009, the defendant was brought before the Supreme Court for resentencing so the mandatory period of postrelease supervision could be imposed (see Penal Law § 70.45; Correction Law § 601–d).
Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally-imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, 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. Lingle, _ NY3d _, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 03308 [2011] ).
A court to which a matter has been remitted for resentencing solely for the purpose of imposing a required term of postrelease supervision does not have the authority to consider whether to reduce the defendant's sentence as a whole (id.).
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and MILLER, 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: 2009–09562 (Ind.No. 1622 /02)
Decided: May 03, 2011
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)