THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JESSIE VELEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
March 24, 2011
82 A.D.3d 542 | 914 N.Y.S.2d 93
Defendant is entitled to relief under People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198 (2010), which invalidates the imposition of postrelease supervision upon resentencing of defendants who have been released after completing their terms of imprisonment. When a person serving a determinate sentence is conditionally released, the determinate sentence is still in effect, but the person has clearly been released from imprisonment within the meaning of Williams. Accordingly, the controlling date for double jeopardy purposes under Williams is the date of release from prison, not the expiration date of the sentence (People v. Grant, 75 AD3d 558 [2010]), and we reject the People‘s argument to the contrary.