People v Davis

Annotate this Case
People v Davis 2013 NY Slip Op 00224 Decided on January 16, 2013 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 January 16, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SHERI S. ROMAN
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2011-04533
(Ind. No. 540/00)

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

v

Ramal Davis, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Sonia Mikolic-Torreira of
counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove and Phyllis Mintz of counsel;
Kevin Farley on the brief), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), imposed March 24, 2011, upon his convictions of manslaughter in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to a determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on November 8, 2000.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term which included the statutorily required 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 Jones, 94 AD3d 1146; People v John, 92 AD3d 896; People v Mills, 90 AD3d 1076; People v Douglas, 89 AD3d 959; People v Harris, 86 AD3d 543, 543-544).
RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and COHEN, 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.