People v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 19 October 2010
• Citation: 908 N.Y.S.2d 886,77 A.D.3d 857
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Steven WATKINS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

908 N.Y.S.2d 886 77 A.D.3d 857 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Steven WATKINS, appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. Oct. 19, 2010.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Rachel Altstein of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), imposed June 15, 2009, which, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and menacing in the second degree, imposed a period of postrelease supervision of 4 years in addition to the previously imposed determinate prison sentence of 10 years on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and menacing in the second degree. On June 6, 2001, he was sentenced to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 10 years, 7 years, and 1 year, respectively. In 2009, while the defendant was still incarcerated and serving the original sentence, he was brought before the Supreme Court for resentencing, so that the mandatory period of postrelease supervision could be imposed ( see Penal Law § 70.45; Correction Law § 601-d).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the resentencing did not subject him to double jeopardy see People v. Mendez, 73 A.D.3d 951, 899 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Murrell, 73 A.D.3d 598, 905 N.Y.S.2d 5; People v. Parisi, 72 A.D.3d 989, 899 N.Y.S.2d 328; cf. People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198, 899 N.Y.S.2d 76, 925 N.E.2d 878, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, ---S.Ct. ----, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2010). Nor did the resentencing violate the defendant's constitutional right to due process ( see People v. Mendez, 73 A.D.3d 951, 899 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Parisi, 72 A.D.3d 989, 899 N.Y.S.2d 328;People v. Scalercio, 71 A.D.3d 1060, 896 N.Y.S.2d 872; cf. People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198, 899 N.Y.S.2d 76, 925 N.E.2d 878).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

SKELOS, J.P., ENG, BELEN and HALL, JJ., concur.