People v. Rogers
Opinion of the Court
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his resentencing to a term which included the statutorily required periods of post-release supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law, since, at the time he was resentenced, he had not yet completed the sentence of imprisonment originally imposed upon him (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630 [2011]; People v Marhone, 107 AD3d 743 [2013]; People v Guillen, 85 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2011]).
The periods of postrelease supervision imposed at resentencing were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.