Majority
Appeal by the de
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
Inasmuch as the defendant had not yet completed serving his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy and due process clauses of the United States Constitution (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621 , 630-632 [2011]; People v Harrison, 112 AD3d 967 [2013]; People v Hernandez, 110 AD3d 918 , 919 [2013]; People v Rogers, 105 AD3d 776 , 777 [2013]).
The resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.E, Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Lingle 16 NY3d 621 at 630-632 p. 877
- People v. Harrison 112 AD3d 967 p. 877
- People v. Hernandez 110 AD3d 918 at 919 p. 877
- People v. Rogers 105 AD3d 776 at 777 p. 877
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 877