Legal Opinion

People v. Allen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 4, 2011PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The People contend that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate a resentence which imposed a period of postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS) while the defendant was on conditional release. The People ask this Court *736to reverse the Supreme Court’s order and remit the matter to that court for the imposition of a period of PRS. The maximum expiration date of the defendant’s original sentence has passed and, thus, as the defendant correctly contends, the relief sought by the People is beyond this Court’s power to grant (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621 [2011];…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hearst Corp. v. ClyneNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. People v. LingleNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. People v. WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. MATTER OF JOHNSON v. PatakiNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. People v. ElmendorfAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. CintronAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  2. People v. CintronAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API