People v Thompson
2012 NY Slip Op 01289 [92 AD3d 812]
February 14, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, March 28, 2012


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Robert Thompson, Appellant.

[*1] Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ellen Fried of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Gamaliel Marrero on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed November 18, 2010, which upon his conviction of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, imposed a period of postrelease supervision of five years in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on May 29, 2003.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in 2003, and he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a determinate term of 12 years of imprisonment (see Penal Law § 70.06 [6]). At that time, however, the Supreme Court failed to impose the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision (see People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457 [2008]). On November 18, 2010, while the defendant was still incarcerated in connection with that conviction, he was brought before the Supreme Court for resentencing so that the mandatory period of postrelease supervision could be imposed (see Penal Law § 70.00 [6]; § 70.45 [2]; Correction Law § 601-d).

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-633 [2011]; People v Harris, 86 AD3d 543, 543-544 [2011]; People v Burgos, 84 AD3d 975 [2011]; People v Young, 78 AD3d 744 [2010]). Skelos, J.P., Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.