Legal Opinion
People v. Thomas
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 10, 2009PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The court properly resentenced defendant to comply with the requirement that a term of postrelease supervision (PRS) be part of the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence (see People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457 [2008]). The resentencing was not untimely under Correction Law § 601-d (4) (d), because defendant’s attorney consented to adjournments of the proceedings so that defendant could be produced. We reject defendant’s argument that by providing that “[t]he designated person may, with counsel, knowingly consent to extend the time periods specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subdivision,”…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- New York v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- People v. SparberNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. FergusonNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. HernandezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- People v. RodriguezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3Cited by16 opinions
- People v. MurrellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. BeckerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. SaveryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. HowardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. CampbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.