§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Roberto Estremera, Appellant.

Brief

18 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. 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

  3. 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”

  4. 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

  5. People v. Nicholson

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1206 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 160 times
    In Olson, the Supreme Court held that overnight guests have a legitimate privacy interest in the residence where they sleep and so are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures in that home (Minnesota v Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98 [1990]).

  6. People v. Boyd

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3627 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 62 times
    In Boyd, the Court extended this exception to cases where a court informs the defendant at his plea that his sentence includes a period of supervised release, without specifying the exact duration.

  7. People v. Pignataro

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 8286 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 24 times
    In Pignataro, the defendant challenged his resentencing under N.Y. Penal Law § 70.85, claiming the statute is unconstitutional because it deprives him of his right to vacate his guilty plea.

  8. People v. Green

    54 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that because defense counsel did not request that defendant be afforded an opportunity to speak or bring such omission to the sentencing court's attention, this claim had not been preserved for review

  9. People ex Rel. Joseph v. Superintendent

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5246 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 24 times
    In Joseph II., we described the issue as "whether [respondents] were detained sex offenders when the State began proceedings against them under article 10" (15 NY3d at 132 [emphasis added]), clearly referring to "proceedings" commenced with the filing of a petition.

  10. People v. Sturgis

    69 N.Y.2d 816 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sturgis, the defendant had been convicted of three counts but the court only pronounced sentence on one of those counts, without specifying to which count the sentence applied, thereby violating CPL 380.20, which requires pronouncement of a sentence as to each count, and leaving the validity of the entire sentence in doubt.

  11. Section 470.05 - Determination of appeals; general criteria

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.05   Cited 14,272 times
    Providing that a question of law is presented when "a protest thereto was registered, by the party claiming error, at the time of such ruling . . . or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same."

  12. Section 380.50 - [Effective 9/1/2024] Statements at time of sentence

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 380.50   Cited 290 times
    Sentencing court must afford the parties "an opportunity to make a statement with respect to any matter relevant to the question of sentence"

  13. Section 70.85 - Transitional exception to determinate sentencing laws

    N.Y. Penal Law § 70.85   Cited 139 times

    This section shall apply only to cases in which a determinate sentence was imposed between September first, nineteen hundred ninety-eight, and the effective date of this section, and was required by law to include a term of post-release supervision, but the court did not explicitly state such a term when pronouncing sentence. When such a case is again before the court pursuant to section six hundred one-d of the correction law or otherwise, for consideration of whether to resentence, the court may

  14. Section 380.40 - Defendant's presence at sentencing

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 380.40   Cited 110 times

    1. In general. The defendant must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced. 2. Exception. Where sentence is to be pronounced for a misdemeanor or for a petty offense, the court may, on motion of the defendant, dispense with the requirement that the defendant be personally present. Any such motion must be accompanied by a waiver, signed and acknowledged by the defendant, reciting the maximum sentence that may be imposed for the offense and stating that the defendant waives the right