People v Dozier

Annotate this Case
People v Dozier 2015 NY Slip Op 09296 Decided on December 16, 2015 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 December 16, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SANDRA L. SGROI
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
2013-02449
(Ind. No. 2495/00)

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

v

Neron Dozier, appellant.



Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Elon Harpaz of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Jill Gross-Marks of counsel; Jacob Lewis on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), imposed October 3, 2012, upon his convictions of murder in the second degree, reckless endangerment 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 periods of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate terms of imprisonment previously imposed on June 21, 2001.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to include 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 Harrison, 112 AD3d 967; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918, 919; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776).

MASTRO, J.P., HALL, SGROI and DUFFY, 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.