Legal Opinion
Donald v. State
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 23, 2011PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Smith, J.
Claimants in these four cases were convicted of crimes for which they received determinate sentences. A statute required that such a sentence include a period of postrelease supervision (PRS), but in each claimant’s case the sentencing judge failed to pronounce a PRS term. Claimants were nevertheless subjected to PRS, and in three of the four cases were imprisoned for PRS violations. They now seek damages from the State of New York, asserting that they were wrongly made to undergo supervision and confinement. We hold that all of their claims are without merit.
I
Each…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Broughton v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Tango v. TulevechNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. SparberNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- McLean v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Lauer v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Maria De Lourdes Torres v. Police Officer JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 2016
- Moulton v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Hudson v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Betances v. FischerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Miller v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.