§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Angel Cintron, Respondent.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Difrancesco

    449 U.S. 117 (1980)   Cited 1,414 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a sentence may be altered if the defendant's "legitimate expectations are not defeated"

  2. United States v. Wilson

    420 U.S. 332 (1975)   Cited 911 times
    Holding that the underlying premise of double jeopardy was "that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense"

  3. People v. Lingle

    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"

  4. People v. Williams

    14 N.Y.3d 198 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 257 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”

  5. Mountain View Coach v. Storms

    102 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 454 times
    Holding that plaintiff who did not hire a substitute bus but rather used one of its reserves could still recover for loss of use

  6. People v. Minaya

    54 N.Y.2d 360 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that correction of sentence to conform with plea agreement did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality

  7. U.S. v. Rico

    902 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that "the district court has inherent power to correct a mistaken sentence within the time fixed for filing an appeal, where the parties had agreed to a different sentence and the court otherwise intended to abide by the agreement"

  8. People v. Velez

    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.

  9. People v. Brown

    40 N.Y.2d 381 (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'".

  10. People v. Cintron

    99 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    2012-10-4 The PEOPLE of State of New York, Appellant, v. Angel CINTRON, Defendant–Respondent. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Justin J. Braun of counsel), for appellant. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno of counsel), for respondent. TOM Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Justin J. Braun of counsel), for appellant. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno of counsel), for respondent. TOM, J.P., CATTERSON, DeGRASSE