People v John

Annotate this Case
People v John 2012 NY Slip Op 01482 Decided on February 21, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 21, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
ARIEL E. BELEN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2009-06178
(Ind. No. 845/04)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Dion A. John, appellant.




Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Laura Lieberman Cohen of
counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John
M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and
Gretchen Robinson of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), imposed June 3, 2009, which, upon his conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, imposed a period of postrelease supervision of two and one-half years in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on March 3, 2005.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, the resentencing to a mandatory period of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621; People v Warren, 91 AD3d 800; People v Ralph, 91 AD3d 796; People v Mills, 90 AD3d 1076; People v Louis, 90 AD3d 1075; People v Edwards, 89 AD3d 1034; People v Douglas, 89 AD3d 959; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550; People v Guillen, 85 AD3d 1201; People v Lopez, 85 AD3d 1059; People v Myrick, 84 AD3d 1272).
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, BELEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.