13 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Difrancesco

    449 U.S. 117 (1980)   Cited 1,314 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not always a bar to a government appeal of a sentence
  2. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.

    430 U.S. 564 (1977)   Cited 1,014 times   3 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"
  3. United States v. Wilson

    420 U.S. 332 (1975)   Cited 871 times
    Holding that the underlying premise of double jeopardy was "that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense"
  4. People v. Lingle

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3308 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 475 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"
  5. United States v. Tateo

    377 U.S. 463 (1964)   Cited 611 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
  6. People v. Sparber

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3946 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 328 times   5 Legal Analyses
    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
  7. People v. Williams

    14 N.Y.3d 198 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 234 times
    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”
  8. Hill v. Wampler

    298 U.S. 460 (1936)   Cited 349 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the sentence imposed by the judge controls and that a sentence may not be enhanced by an amendment of an administrator
  9. People v. Velez

    975 N.E.2d 907 (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.
  10. People v. Brown

    353 N.E.2d 811 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 83 times
    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'".