§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

26 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Difrancesco

    449 U.S. 117 (1980)   Cited 1,416 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. Sparber

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3946 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 355 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

  5. 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”

  6. Garner v. Correctional Servs

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3947 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 248 times
    Holding that post-release supervision imposed by anyone other than a judge violates New York state law

  7. Mountain View Coach v. Storms

    102 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 456 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

  8. People v. Muniz

    91 N.Y.2d 570 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 183 times

    Argued May 6, 1998 Decided June 4, 1998 George Grun, for appellant. Glenn Green, for respondent. LEVINE, J.: Defendant was indicted, following the shooting death of his ex-wife's current husband, on three separate counts of the crime of murder in the second degree. Each of the three counts reflected an alternative theory of the crime: intentional murder (Penal Law § 125.25); depraved indifference to human life by recklessly engaging in conduct which created a grave risk of death (Penal Law § 125

  9. 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

  10. People v. Acevedo

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5582 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 36 times
    In People v. Acevedo, 17 N.Y.3d 297, 929 N.Y.S.2d 55, 952 N.E.2d 1047 (2011), the Court of Appeals held that defendants will not be permitted, “by means of [seeking] vacatur and resentence” on prior convictions in which the court failed to impose required postrelease supervision, “to render their prior convictions useless as predicates to enhance punishment for the crimes they subsequently committed” (id. at 303, 929 N.Y.S.2d 55, 952 N.E.2d 1047).