People v. Rogers
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal by the de
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to include 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 NY3d 621 [2011]; People v Louis, 90 AD3d 1075 [2011]; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550 [2011]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.