§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Jose Rodriguez, Appellant.

Brief

24 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. People v. Finnegan

    85 N.Y.2d 53 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 240 times
    In Finnegan, the Court of Appeals refused to read into another section of the VTL a requirement that the police affirmatively take certain steps, reasoning that because the Legislature did not impose such an obligation, the courts should not do so in the Legislature's place. Finnegan, 647 N.E.2d at 760-761.

  3. Rodriguez v. Miller

    537 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notwithstanding that the Second Circuit had in the past, as did its sister-circuits, used its own precedent to interpret and flesh out Supreme Court decisions to decide petitions that came before it, it can no longer do so

  4. Miller v. Rodriguez

    549 U.S. 1163 (2007)   Cited 3 times

    No. 05-1472. January 16, 2007. Reported below: 439 F. 3d 68. Certiorari Granted — Vacated and Remanded. C.A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Carey v. Musladin, ante, p. 70.

  5. Rodriguez v. Miller

    439 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "stricter scrutiny" is necessary to support the exclusion of family members from the courtroom than members of the public

  6. State v. Bautista

    7 N.Y.3d 838 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 46 times
    In People v. Bautista, 7 N.Y.3d 838, 823 N.Y.S.2d 754, 857 N.E.2d 49 (2006), we held that no statutory provision authorizes a defendant to appeal from an Appellate Division order affirming the denial of the defendant's resentencing application pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act (L. 2005, ch. 643) (id. at 838–839, 823 N.Y.S.2d 754, 857 N.E.2d 49).

  7. People v. Yusuf

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4200 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 35 times
    In Yusuf, the court addressed whether an out-of-state felony could qualify as a violent felony for purposes of enhanced sentencing under Penal Law § 70.70(4).

  8. People v. Machado

    90 N.Y.2d 187 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 48 times
    In People v. Machado (90 N.Y.2d 187, supra), a Rosario violation was discovered after sentencing, but before defendant's direct appeal was heard.

  9. People v. Laing

    79 N.Y.2d 166 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 57 times
    In People v Laing (79 N.Y.2d 166, 170-71, 172, supra), we cautioned that "this Court may not resort to interpretative contrivances to broaden the scope and application" of unambiguous statutes to "create a right to appeal out of thin air" in order to "fill the void, without trespassing on the Legislature's domain and undermining the structure of article 450 of the CPL" (see also, People v De Jesus, 54 N.Y.2d 447, 449, supra; People v Gersewitz, supra, 294 N.Y., at 169; but see, People v Bachert, supra, 69 N.Y.2d, at 600).

  10. People v. Hernandez

    98 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 30 times

    40 Decided May 7, 2002. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered April 6, 2001, which, among other things, (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arthur M. Schack, J.), dismissing a misdemeanor complaint charging defendant with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and consumption of alcohol in a public place, (2)