People v Wheeler

Annotate this Case
People v Wheeler 2013 NY Slip Op 05235 Decided on July 10, 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 July 10, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SANDRA L. SGROI
SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2011-09366
(Ind. No. 1576/99)

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

v

Gabriel Wheeler, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David G. Lowry of
counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y.
(John M. Castellano and Anastasia
Spanakos of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), imposed September 21, 2011, upon his convictions of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on February 27, 2001.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, the resentencing to a term including the statutorily required periods 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 Rogers, 105 AD3d 776; People v Dawkins, 87 AD3d 550).
SKELOS, J.P., CHAMBERS, SGROI and HINDS-RADIX, 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.