430 U.S. 564 (1977) Cited 1,080 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding "appeals by the Government from . . . judgments of acquittal" entered under Rule 29 are authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3731 "unless barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution"
377 U.S. 463 (1964) Cited 637 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude the retrial of a defendant who has a conviction set aside after successfully arguing that a guilty plea was not voluntary
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3308 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 480 times
Holding that a defendant's right to appeal after a resentencing is "limited to the correction of errors or the abuse of discretion at the resentencing proceeding"
Holding that, by imposing PRS terms, DOCS usurped the judicial function as defined by New York law; only the sentencing court has the authority to impose the PRS component of the sentence and must do so at the time of sentencing
Holding that “after release from prison, a legitimate expectation in the finality of a sentence arises and the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents reformation to attach a PRS component to the original completed sentence”
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5198 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 26 times
In Velez, we addressed whether a defendant acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence where a resentencing proceeding had been instituted but the term of PRS had not yet been imposed prior to the expiration of the sentence.
In People v Brown (40 N.Y.2d 381), this court interpreted recent rulings of the United States Supreme Court as precluding appeal by the People "from an adverse trial ruling whenever such appeal if resolved favorably for the People might require the defendant to stand retrial — or even if it would then be necessary for the trial court `to make supplemental findings'".