§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Lawrence Blankymsee, Appellant.

Brief

17 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. 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"

  3. Earley v. Murray

    451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 396 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that DOCS practice unconstitutional

  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. People v. Ramirez

    89 N.Y.2d 444 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 174 times
    Upholding consecutive robbery sentences where the defendant forcibly took the belongings of two security guards in a hotel parking lot

  7. People v. Buss

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9851 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 59 times
    In Buss we analyzed section 70.30 based on the language of the statute, and applied our interpretation of the requirements of section 70.30 to SORA. Nothing in the case suggests that our interpretation of section 70.30 was dependent on SORA, or limited to SORA cases.

  8. People v. Mills

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9854 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 53 times
    Noting that “[s]urely the Legislature did not intend fresh crimes to trigger resentencing opportunities,” when it rejected the argument that a defendant who violated parole could be resentenced for the underlying offense under similar statutory reforms enacted in 2005

  9. U.S. v. Silvers

    90 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 1996)   Cited 63 times
    Holding "district court's action [in a § 2255 proceeding] of reinstating [defendant's] previously-vacated [lesser included] conspiracy conviction, after vacating his CCE conviction on grounds that did not affect the conspiracy conviction, was appropriate and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause"

  10. In Matter of New York v. Rashid

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1316 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 24 times

    No. 205. Argued October 19, 2010. Decided November 23, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered December 22, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.; op 25 Misc 3d 318), which had (1) granted respondent's motion to dismiss a petition seeking sex offender civil management of respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law

  11. Section 70.30 - Calculation of terms of imprisonment

    N.Y. Penal Law § 70.30   Cited 762 times

    1.[Effective until 9/1/2025] An indeterminate or determinate sentence of imprisonment commences when the prisoner is received in an institution under the jurisdiction of the state department of corrections and community supervision. Where a person is under more than one indeterminate or determinate sentence, the sentences shall be calculated as follows: [Effective 9/1/2025] An indeterminate sentence of imprisonment commences when the prisoner is received in an institution under the jurisdiction of

  12. Section 440.40 - Motion to set aside sentence; by people

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.40   Cited 137 times
    Permitting prosecutors to move for resentencing