27 Cited authorities

Morrissey v. Brewer
408 U.S. 471 (1972) Cited 10,670 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that parolees "must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation"
Missouri v. Hunter
459 U.S. 359 (1983) Cited 2,259 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that cumulative punishment does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause if the legislature specifically authorized it
Whalen v. United States
445 U.S. 684 (1980) Cited 1,463 times
Holding rape and felony murder are the same offense under Blockburger where felony murder conviction could not be had without proof of the rape
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"
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"
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
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”
Gonzalez-Fuentes v. Molina
607 F.3d 864 (1st Cir. 2010) Cited 166 times
Holding that inmates had a protectable liberty interest because the electronic surveillance program at issue, “unlike institutional confinement of any kind, allowed the appellees to live with their loved ones, form relationships with neighbors, lay down roots in their community, and reside in a dwelling of their own choosing (albeit subject to certain limitations) rather than in a cell designated by the government”
People v. Kan
78 N.Y.2d 54 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 240 times
Finding that the closure of the court including the exclusion of defendant's family during the testimony of an accomplice cooperating witness violated defendant's right to a public trial, given that the witness had previously testified in front of defendant's parents, had testified that he did not fear defendant's family, and defendant had a greater interest in having her family present because of a language barrier
People v. Konstantinides
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9311 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 70 times
In Konstantinides, a witness specifically claimed that a defense lawyer asked her to lie (14 N.Y.3d at 6, 896 N.Y.S.2d 284, 923 N.E.2d 567); in Fulton, a witness had told prosecutors “that he had once imported heroin for Pulton's trial counsel” (5 F.3d at 606).

The People, Respondent,v.Christopher Brinson, Appellant.

27 Cited authorities

Holding that parolees "must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation"

Holding that cumulative punishment does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause if the legislature specifically authorized it

Holding rape and felony murder are the same offense under Blockburger where felony murder conviction could not be had without proof of the rape

Holding that a sentence may be altered if the defendant's "legitimate expectations are not defeated"

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”

In Konstantinides, a witness specifically claimed that a defense lawyer asked her to lie (14 N.Y.3d at 6, 896 N.Y.S.2d 284, 923 N.E.2d 567); in Fulton, a witness had told prosecutors “that he had once imported heroin for Pulton's trial counsel” (5 F.3d at 606).